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. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff subscribed to the Defendant Company’s insurance through C, an insurance solicitor of the Defendant Company, and transferred KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant Company’s account. In addition, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 127,00,000 to C’s account on the same day.
B. On December 3, 2014, the date of transfer, the Plaintiff and C drafted a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the purport that “C shall borrow KRW 127,00,000 from the Plaintiff as interest rate of KRW 2.1% per month and as of December 2, 2015,” at a law firm (LLC) D office, the date of transfer.
C. C repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 127,00,000,000,000 on January 20, 2016, KRW 25,000 on February 3, 2016, and KRW 127,00,000 on October 23, 2018.
C was prosecuted by the Incheon District Court 2018 Godan1582 due to the suspicion of fraud against the plaintiff.
The summary of the facts charged is that C, by deceiving the Plaintiff to the effect that “A would have subscribed to the Defendant’s insurance with an earning rate of 25% per annum, if it pays money to B. If no profits are made, C would preserve the profits at home and make a notarial deed.” It is said that C, by receiving KRW 127,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and defrauded it.
C was pronounced not guilty on October 24, 2018. The reason is that preparing an insurance solicitor and a notarial deed while taking out an insurance policy is equivalent to the empirical rule of C’s assertion that it was made by borrowing money from or receiving an investment from the Plaintiff, and that it was more consistent with the empirical rule. The interest rate on the notarial deed of this case is very large compared to the insurance products that the Plaintiff subscribed, and it is difficult to view that C explained it as the interest rate on the notarial deed of this case. The Plaintiff’s 100 million won on the same day was remitted to the Defendant account and subscribed to other insurance. In full view of the above, it was insufficient to recognize that C received a remittance of KRW 127,00,000,000 by means of the transfer of money to the Defendant account.
[Recognition of Facts] without dispute;