beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단73714

손해배상

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 125,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from January 29, 2015 to April 19, 2016, and the following:

Reasons

1. As to the claim against Defendant B, the fact that Defendant B, although Defendant B had no capacity to build and operate the F F F F F F cafeteria in Sejong-si, deceivings the Plaintiff as if he would distribute the profits from the operation of the said cafeteria, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff on December 3, 2014, which was KRW 85 million in terms of the funds for construction and operation of the said cafeteria, KRW 23 million on December 29, 2014, and KRW 125 million on January 29, 2015, and acquired by fraud from the Plaintiff on the pretext of the funds for construction and operation of the said cafeteria, does not conflict between the parties.

Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 125,00,000 and damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 29, 2015, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint in this case, to April 19, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. In full view of the respective statements in Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 3, and 13 as to the claims against the defendant C and the defendant D, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the witness Eul's testimony, the fact that Eul received KRW 125 million in total from the plaintiff as the account under the name of the defendant D (hereinafter "the defendant company") on December 3, 2014 for the purpose of the construction and operation fund of a restaurant for accommodation at the F construction site located in Sejong-si, the fact that Eul received KRW 85 million from the plaintiff on December 3, 2014, and KRW 23 million on December 29, 2014, and KRW 125 million on January 29, 2015.

However, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering Gap evidence 5 and Eul evidence 2 as well as the testimony of witness G, namely, F, the first class of the Residential Self-Governing Council, entrusted the right to operate the boarding restaurant at the site of apartment or school construction, to H (hereinafter referred to as "non-party company"), and on December 23, 2014, B took office as the representative director of the non-party company, and Defendant C appears to have invested money in the business of operating the above boarding restaurant, but did not suffer damage because the business was not properly implemented.