손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff, who was operated by D, intended to take over the Kimbed Kim (hereinafter “E”)’s name, “E,” and transferred KRW 5 million on March 20, 2008 to Defendant C’s deposit account, and KRW 30 million on April 11, 2008.
B. Defendant C, on March 20, 2008, remitted each amount of KRW 20 million,00,000,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff to D deposit account; KRW 25 million on April 4, 2008; and KRW 30 million received from the Plaintiff on April 11, 2008.
C. The Defendants received and operated the instant restaurant, and transferred 84 million won to F on July 31, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to Defendant C’s deposit account in order to solely take over the instant restaurant, and then, the Plaintiff and three Defendants invested KRW 40 million each in accordance with Defendant B’s proposal and agreed to acquire and operate the instant restaurant together with the instant restaurant at KRW 120 million.
(2) The Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff the Plaintiff’s joint investor status to Defendant C’s deposit account pursuant to the instant agreement, but did not seek the remainder of KRW 5 million. The Defendants deprived the Plaintiff’s joint investor status, and did not receive a return of KRW 35 million in total by excluding the Plaintiff from the instant agreement.
However, as we know, the acquisition price of the instant restaurant was not KRW 120 million but KRW 78 million, and the acquisition price to be shared by the Plaintiff was KRW 26 million, and the Plaintiff was paid all the contributions. Defendant B, by deceiving the acquisition price, acquired KRW 35 million by deceiving the Plaintiff from the business agreement of the instant restaurant, thereby excluding the Plaintiff from the business agreement of the instant restaurant. Defendant C also received KRW 42 million out of the purchase price of the instant restaurant, thereby resulting in tort.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly illegal acts.