beta
Text
1. As to KRW 122,00,000 and KRW 90,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from May 1, 2014 to September 28, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an entry contract with Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), under which the Plaintiff transferred DNA franchise bus owned by Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) to the Plaintiff, but the ownership of which is maintained in the name of Nonparty 1 and is to receive the rent of KRW 300,000 per month from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant entry contract”).
B. However, on April 30, 2014, the Defendant, the representative director of the non-party company, entered into a contract to transfer the instant vehicle to the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) with the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E Co., Ltd.”) in the name of the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant transfer contract”), and on the same day, the transfer registration of ownership
C. The defendant Na
The Defendant was charged with interference with the exercise of rights by the Suwon District Court's Ansan Branch 2015 Godan1025 on the same act as the foregoing, and on August 24, 2016, the Defendant took property benefits equivalent to KRW 90 million, and the Plaintiff suffered property damage equivalent to the above amount, and the Defendant was sentenced to a suspended sentence of imprisonment for six months by the above court.
The defendant filed an appeal and appeal against the above judgment, but each dismissed.
[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant disposed of the instant vehicle without permission, and thereby, the Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to KRW 122 million, which is the actual transfer value of the said vehicle, at the time when the said vehicle was transferred to Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 2. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 122 million. As to this, the Defendant’s value of the instant vehicle is the amount obtained by deducting the amount of debt secured by the said vehicle from the market value, and at the time of the instant transfer contract, the said vehicle is the said amount.