Attorney Lee Do-young

Attorney Lee Do-young

2. Yellow dust0;

2. 5% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendants are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 40% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder 60% is borne by the Defendants, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Until the service date of a copy of the complaint, 5% per annum and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of complete payment.

payment of the same amount shall be made.

A. around October 2002, Defendant 1 agreed to receive the right of running an entertainment drinking club business in Seo-gu, Daegu from Defendant 2, and recommended the Plaintiff, an external third-party, to make an investment. The Plaintiff and Defendant 1 made an investment on November 2002.

The first police officer, the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant 1 agreed to invest KRW 100,00 on the title of 100,000,000 on the basis of its investment (Defendant 1 does not actually contribute the said money). When the agreement is terminated, Defendant 1 entered into a business agreement with the effect that Defendant 1 returns the said amount of KRW 80,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,00,000 to Defendant 2 on November 8, 2002 in accordance with the above business agreement, and Defendant 1 operated the said main points with Defendant 2 from that time, and Defendant 1 operated the said main points (the reason why Defendant 2 continued to engage in the business with Defendant 1 is whether Defendant 1 was not fully paid or not, and it is unclear that the Defendants formally agreed to transfer the business to attract investment from the Plaintiff).

C. After November 15, 2002, Defendant 2 borrowed KRW 85,00,00 for the principal operating expenses from the Plaintiff as the principal operating expenses, and around December 2002, Defendant 2 paid KRW 22,00,000,000 in total to the Plaintiff as the refund order of the principal of the loan, and KRW 15,00,000 in total over several occasions from October 2003. Meanwhile, Defendant 2 transferred the said principal operating right to another person on or around October 2003 without the Plaintiff.

D. When the Plaintiff was unable to receive the remaining amount of investment, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant 2 on November 2003, and the appeal was made on July 9, 2004 by the Daegu District Prosecutors' Office, which was subject to a disposition that was not suspected of having been made, and on September 9, 2004, Defendant 1 received from Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, who received a written notice from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to pay KRW 165,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s investment and loans to Defendant 2. On the same day, the Plaintiff received a cash custody certificate from the Defendants to pay KRW 300,000,000 by September 30, 2006.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 2-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff agreed that the Defendants would pay KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff by delivering the said cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants asserted that they are liable to pay the said money and the damages for delay.

As to this, the Defendants have prepared the said cash custody certificate without any choice of force that the Plaintiff forced the Defendants to force the Defendants to have an internal relationship with Defendant 1’s former husband, etc... Thus, the Defendants’ declaration of intent based on this is null and void as it is a non-influent declaration of intention, a false conspiracy, or an unfair legal act, or was made by coercion. Therefore, it is revoked.

I asserts that this case is.

B. Determination

In full view of the purport of the oral argument with Defendant 1, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership business agreement with Defendant 2, and Defendant 2 had been only 2-3 only before investing in the above main points. Defendant 1, who was divorced with the husband and was in an internal relationship with Defendant 2, was assigned the business rights of the above main points and recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment, and concluded a partnership business agreement with the Plaintiff. Defendant 1 was preparing for a judgment with the former husband at the time when the Defendants prepared the above cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff. During the process of issuing the above cash custody certificate from the Defendants, the Plaintiff was able to inform the Defendants of the Defendants’ internal relations with the former husband. In full view of the fact that Defendant 2 was replaced by the phone call from Defendant 2 to the above main points, and Defendant 1, who was in an internal relationship with Defendant 2, could be acknowledged as having made up for 00 won the above cash custody amount to Defendant 2, despite the fact that the above investment amount was made up for 00 won or more.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendants appear to have concluded a partnership business agreement with Defendant 1 without actually investing funds, using the fact that it is difficult to operate the said connotation point, and Defendant 1 did not know the Plaintiff before the said investment. However, the Plaintiff invested funds to the said main points upon Defendant 1’s recommendation, and thereafter, transferred all of the funds to Defendant 2 directly and indirectly related to the Defendants, and Defendant 2 arbitrarily transferred the said main points without obtaining the Plaintiff’s consent. As such, it is difficult to view that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that there was an unfair declaration of intent to make reimbursement exceeding KRW 300,000,000 as stated in the said cash guarantee, and there was no other unfair declaration of intent to make reimbursement in excess of KRW 37,00,000, KRW 200, KRW 800, KRW 3000, KRW 200, KRW 800, KRW 200, KRW 37,0000, KRW 200, as seen earlier.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 128,00,000 won and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from October 1, 2006 to February 13, 2008, which is the sentencing date of the instant case, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-chul

Judges Cho Jong-il