투자금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The defendant.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is that “ June 19, 2016.” under Section 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “ June 19, 2015,” and the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the supplementary determination as follows. As such, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s K Bank Account (Account Number L) was an account solely for the management of the money that the Plaintiff paid in cash to the Defendant, and that KRW 96,430,000, which was deposited in cash from July 24, 2015 to November 21, 2016, was the amount that the Plaintiff paid in cash to the Defendant.
In full view of the facts as follows: (a) the date and amount of the Plaintiff alleged to have withdrawn in cash as shown in the attached Table 3 and the date and amount of the Defendant deposited in cash; (b) it is difficult to recognize the relationship between the Plaintiff’s account and the date and amount of the Defendant deposited in the said account; (c) it is insufficient to deem that the money deposited in cash was paid in the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant; (d) the testimony of the witness M of the Party in question is made in detail by the Defendant’s agent and acting on behalf of N.; (e) it is merely known that the Defendant was acting on behalf of the Plaintiff, who is the seller, and was aware that it was delivered to the Defendant through N; and (e) it is insufficient to prove that the Defendant did not deliver the money of the said land to the Plaintiff. In full view of the foregoing, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant either received the money of KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff in cash or agreed to return it to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered.