손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s reasoning is the same as that stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the first instance is the same as that in the paragraph 2 through 5 “1. Basic Facts”. However, in the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the first instance, “Plaintiff A paid KRW 66,900,000 to the Defendant each of the KRW 33,500,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment”)” in Article 3-B of the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the judgment in the first instance, “Plaintiff A paid KRW 66,900,000, and KRW 33,450,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant Company”)” (hereinafter “instant investment”).
2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. Mainly, each of the instant consulting contracts constitutes “instant service contract” in the judgment of the court of first instance.
1) As seen in following the cancellation due to the Defendant Company’s deception, the Defendant Company first judged the Plaintiffs’ assertion of “unfair conduct” for the convenience of understanding. The Defendant Company constitutes “instant auction real estate” in the first instance judgment, i.e., the 3rd apartment house F of the Gyeonggi-si E, M, and N ground reinforced concrete structure slive roof in the Gyeonggi-si.
hereinafter referred to as “the instant row housing F”
Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch (hereinafter “Songnam Branch”)
(2) The lower court determined that each of the instant consulting agreements constitutes “instant service contract” in the judgment of the first instance, and that the instant consulting agreement is deemed to be an investment in the successful bid in the G real estate auction procedure.
) The Plaintiffs were accused by making a false agreement that guarantees the return on investment and guarantees the principal of the investment fund, and that they would make a high profit within a short period. Each of the investment commitments dated March 24, 2016, and each of the investment commitments dated April 1, 2016 (the “instant investment commitments” in the judgment of the first instance court).
The defendant company made up for the reasons that it could not be recovered by paying all the investments made by the plaintiffs.