투자금 반환
1. All of the appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of the review are assessed against the plaintiff (the plaintiff).
1. Sentence and finality of the original judgment
A. On September 15, 2017, the Plaintiffs, as Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap564180, conspired with Defendant, W, and X, etc. to the effect that they would guarantee a high profit rate to the Plaintiffs without obtaining authorization or permission under relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and by deceiving the Plaintiffs, thereby causing considerable damages to the Plaintiffs, and filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the investment amount due to damages arising from tort or termination of the said investment agreement.
B. On February 21, 2018, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs on the confession that he/she did not submit a written response despite being served with a notice of the complaint and the date for pleading, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on the ground that: (a) the Defendant and W served a duplicate of the complaint and the date for pleading on the method of service by public notice, in which his/her location is not identified; and (b) the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiffs on the ground that “the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs that the Defendant is liable for tort against the Plaintiffs; and (c) there is no evidence to
(hereinafter referred to as "the subject decision for review"). The subject decision for review became final and conclusive on March 13, 2018, because the plaintiffs did not file an appeal against it.
C. Meanwhile, on December 19, 2018, the Defendant: (a) stated that “W, a director of the Defendant’s intra-company, would obtain authorization, obtain permission, make registration, or report in connection with the Defendant’s business; and (b) would guarantee investors’ profit in a certain percentage of investment funds; and (c) provided explanation to the effect that the principal would be guaranteed even if the Plaintiff incurred loss of investment funds; and (d) received money from the Plaintiffs, which are investors.”