약정금 청구의 소
The Plaintiff
A. Defendant B’s 36,261,490 Won and its related 5% per annum from November 13, 2019 to August 14, 2020.
1. Claim against the defendant B
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment by publication service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Claim against Defendant C
A. As to the claim for agreed amount, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement between the Defendant C and the Defendant C, who operated the company “F” together with Defendant B, to make an investment in the name of the said company in the “cash” and to receive the said investment amount from Defendant C by transferring the said investment amount to the “bank bank” under the name of the said company, and the Plaintiff invested KRW 3,00,000 in cash room pursuant to the said agreement. Since the Plaintiff’s investment amount was KRW 36,261,490 as of the bank bank, Defendant C was liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 36,261,490 as well as delayed damages.
The argument is asserted.
According to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 7, whether Defendant C operated the above company together with Defendant C, and there is an Internet newspaper technician with the purport that Defendant C is working as a director of the above company. However, the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant C became a party to the above agreement with the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the Plaintiff entered into the above agreement with Defendant C is without merit.
B. The judgment on the claim for damages caused by a tort is that the defendant C is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort, since the defendant C, although the defendant C received an investment from the plaintiff, did not have an intent or ability to liquidate it or distribute profits and acquired the investment money by deceiving the plaintiff.
The argument is asserted.
It is not sufficient to recognize the fact of deceiving the plaintiff by deceiving the plaintiff, and to recognize it differently.