beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.12 2015가합104274

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 450,000,000 as well as its full payment from December 23, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant E, along with G, established a fake loan account company related to futures investment and advertised that “it may guarantee principal and make high profits,” thereby soliciting many and unspecified investors and receiving investment funds, and Defendant E served as a “person specializing in futures trading”, attracting investment against investors, and shared the server management.

B. around August 2015, Defendant E, along with G, performs futures trading trading trading trading trading trading with the trade name “H”, and receives a large amount of money from futures trading fees. In full view, Defendant E is connected with the three branches of securities companies. A lending account company does not have to be aware of the companies using the Jinus HTS program. However, as the securities company has to enter into a contract under the name of a corporation, there must be a corporate name and a corporate passbook. It is necessary to carry out 1/3 of the proceeds from the lending. It is around that time, Defendant C Co., Ltd (the trade name at that time was “A”) from F, and thereafter, it was changed to “C” on August 25, 2015, and “C” on February 28, 2017, and each of it was changed to “C”)’s name bank.

C. Defendant E and G opened a J site (K) and led investors to make more investments in the early stage, on the ground that “L” investors are called “L”-based investors at the Kakakao Kakao Stockholm Group, and “J gift program is not likely to have a legitimate futures trading through a single investment instrument.” In addition, Defendant E and G had investors gain profits from a single investment scheme.

In this regard, Defendant E opened a Kakao Kakao group hosting room that can only enter 150 million or more investors in the middle of October 2015, 2015, and the Plaintiff was derived from futures investment.