beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from October 1, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including numbers), the plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the defendant around March 5, 2018 at the request of the defendant, a director of the company, to lend KRW 100 million to the defendant. Accordingly, the plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to the defendant's single bank account on March 6, 2018. However, it is recognized that the above monetary loan agreement was concluded with the purport that C has the defendant's prior seal impression without the defendant's joint representative director D's consent.
According to the above facts, the above monetary loan contract concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed null and void as it was concluded by a person without authority. However, as seen earlier, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the defendant's account under the above monetary loan contract is identical to the above facts. Thus, the defendant gains the profit of KRW 100 million which was remitted from the plaintiff without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the above amount.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts to the purport that the obligation to return unjust enrichment should be borne by C, not the defendant, since the defendant is not the defendant, since the subject of actual benefit accrued to the above KRW 100 million, but the obligation to return unjust enrichment should be borne by C.
The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of 12% per annum from October 1, 2019 to the date of full payment, which is clear that the Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the Defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.