1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as 15% per annum from March 22, 2019 to May 31, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the defendant's child.

B. On November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was hired by Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on November 1, 2012. Around June 2014, the Plaintiff started to take charge of the payment of benefits to be paid by himself/herself from Nonparty Company by delivering his/her savings passbook and cash cards to the Defendant.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff was living together at the Defendant’s office, and went out on October 11, 2018.

On March 12, 2019, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant with this Court seeking the return of the amount equivalent to the benefits that he left during the lawsuit, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on March 21, 2019.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1, 3, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is the person, from June 2014 to October 2018, the Plaintiff left the Defendant with a total of KRW 187,448,804, which the Plaintiff received from the Nonparty Company.

However, the Plaintiff is a person who received a refund of KRW 37,542,089 in total from the Defendant, including KRW 11,037,979, KRW 4,629,860 under the pretext of the E Bank Subscription Savings, KRW 15,900,00 under the pretext of the K Bank Subscription Savings, KRW 2,974,250 under the pretext of the K Bank Subscription Savings, KRW 2,974,250 under the pretext of the K Bank Subscription Savings, and KRW 3,00,000 under the pretext of the Plaintiff’s appointment of the attorney-at-law in divorce lawsuit from June 201 to December

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 149,906,715 (i.e., KRW 187,448,804 - KRW 37,542,089) and damages for delay.

나. 판단 1) 원고와 피고가 맺은 법률관계의 성격 금전의 임치는 봉금(封金) 등 특정물로서 임치하는 경우가 아닌 한 소비임치로 보아야 하므로(대법원 2004. 3. 26. 선고 2003다65049 판결 참조), 수치인은 임치 목적물인 금전을 소비할 수 있으며, 다만 임치인의 청구에 따라 동종동액의 금전을 반환할 의무가 있을 뿐이다(민법 제702조 . 앞서 인정한 사실들에...