손해배상(기)
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 2008, the Plaintiff was the head captain of the G company, and the actual operator of H, a corporation established for the purpose of international trade business, O-day sales, and fixed-scale business. Defendant B, around May 2006, changed the purpose business into software development and distribution business, project development and consulting business, and overseas financing attraction business, etc. (hereinafter “Nonindicted company”) around March 2013.
The actual operator and the defendant C are the representative director of the non-party company.
B. The Plaintiff first met Defendant B around July 2010. At the time, he was introduced by Defendant B to engage in investment advice, investment attraction, and verification. At that time, his father F was in operation of a Pamper factory in Malaysia and in Indonesia, his father was in operation of Pamper factory in Malaysia, and he was in operation of Pamper and timber-related business in Indonesia. At that time, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that he was in operation of Pamper and timber-related business around December 201 after he was in consultation with Defendant B around 201 with F around December 201, he purchased approximately 60,000 forest land in Indonesan Island Island and forest land in the same region, and developed it as a Pamper farm (hereinafter “instant project”).
) In presenting the “Iskin, request the attraction of investment amounting to USD 53,000,000 (US; hereinafter the same shall apply).
C. Accordingly, Defendant B transferred USD 24,00,000 and USD 27,730 to the account of Defendant B or Nonparty Company, respectively, as the first on-site inspection from March 27, 2011 to March 31, 201, and the second on-site inspection from April 17, 201 to April 24, 201. The Plaintiff transferred USD 27,730 to the account of Defendant B or Nonparty Company.
Since September 30, 201, to October 5, 2011, Defendant B had three-party on-site inspections. On the other hand, Defendant B was Nonparty on October 5, 2011, which was the last day of the inspection.