beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.11.10 2014가합2482

투자정산금

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 118,130,000 and KRW 96,504,00 among them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From November 10, 2010 to September 2013, the Defendant operated “D”, which is a sales store of textile machinery, in Daegu-gu building 101, and entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff, etc. with the Plaintiff, etc. on the content that purchases textile machinery and equally divide sales profits by bearing expenses among the Plaintiff, etc., from the latter part of 2010 to December 2011, the details of each case’s partnership agreement are as follows.

Plaintiff 1, on January 201, 201, Plaintiff 24 U.S. dollars 20,000, customs clearance fees of KRW 10,500,000, and KRW 70,000, U.S. dollars 70, U.S. dollars 20,000, U.S. dollars 20,000, U.S. dollars 70, Jun. 13, 2011, Plaintiff, Defendant, E, and Nonparty G ( India) on October 25, 2011, Plaintiff 48, U.S. dollars 20,000, U.S. dollars 303, U.S. 30, U. 300, Oct. 25, 201, Plaintiff 4, U.S. 32, 405, U.S. 400, Oct. 28, 2011

B. The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for two years for occupational embezzlement in Daegu District Court Decision 2014 High Court Decision 2551, 4298 (Joint) and 6380 (Joint). The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months on the ground that there was no proof as to the charge of partial embezzlement in the instant case’s appellate court’s Daegu High Court Decision 2015No3483 (Joint). Of the Defendant’s criminal facts found guilty in the appellate court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and two months.

1. On January 9, 201, the defendant was invested in USD 20,00 from the plaintiff to purchase 24 used goods in the insululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululululul 70, Jun. 13, 201, with USD 20,000 from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and then kept in his work for the plaintiff after receiving a request from the plaintiff to the plaintiff on December 9, 201.