beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s KRW 10,000,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 23, 2008 to January 23, 2016.
Reasons
1. Claim against the defendant B
A. On April 22, 2008, Defendant B received the Plaintiff’s registration certificate, resident registration certificate, seal imprint, and certificate of personal seal from the Plaintiff at the meeting of the Man-Nam-si located in Chungcheongnam-si, Seoul, at the request of the Plaintiff that “a third party provide a third party with the instant vehicle as security, and obtain a loan equivalent to KRW 10,000,000.” On April 23, 2008, Defendant B received a delivery from the Plaintiff of the said vehicle’s registration certificate, resident registration certificate, seal imprint, and certificate of personal seal at the office located in the used vehicle trading complex located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul.
Since Defendant B was delegated by the Plaintiff to provide the said vehicle as security within the scope of the loan of KRW 10,000,000, Defendant B has the duty to provide the said vehicle as security within the scope of the loan.
Nevertheless, on April 23, 2008, Defendant B violated the above duties and provided the instant vehicle as collateral in addition to KRW 10,000,000,000, in addition to KRW 10,000,000 delegated by the Plaintiff, and provided the instant vehicle as collateral, and acquired property gains equivalent to KRW 10,000,000, and suffered property damage equivalent to the said amount from the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant B on August 3, 2009, and the above defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 3,000,000 by Sung-nam Branch Support 2009 High Court Decision 2009 High Court Decision 14978 on August 3, 2009, and the above summary order was finalized around that time.
Thus, Defendant B is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for mental damage caused by the above illegal act as consolation money.
(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;
C. Part dismissed: (a) the timing of the tort (violation of Trust) committed by Defendant B; (b) the amount of profit from property; and (c) the owner of the instant vehicle at the time of the said tort, the owner of the instant vehicle and the Plaintiff’s attached F shared 50% shares, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case.