대여금
1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
purport, purport, and.
The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, if it excludes the defendant from further determination as to the defendant's argument as described in the following paragraph (2).
In addition, the defendant's investment in the plaintiffs' assertion that the investment was made voluntarily, and the distribution of dividends for the investment was made well, and it was not possible for the plaintiffs to recover the investment money due to the share increase, and the defendant did not use the investment money for personal purposes. Therefore, the defendant's tort is not recognized.
Although the plaintiffs consistently asserted that the amount paid to the defendant is a loan, the court of first instance ordering the defendant to return the investment amount has violated the disposition right.
Judgment
Unless there are special circumstances where it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial, the facts established in the criminal trial as to the same facts cannot be acknowledged, even if it is not bound by the finding of facts in the criminal trial.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da24276 delivered on September 30, 1997, etc.). As seen above, there is a final judgment of conviction on the facts charged that the Defendant, without any intent or ability to guarantee the principal and interest of the Plaintiffs, by deceiving the Plaintiffs and receiving money under the name of investment money, and there is no special circumstance to deem that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in the criminal trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.
Therefore, the defendant's argument that the defendant did not acquire the investment money of the plaintiffs is without merit.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs.