beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.29 2013가단5181042

투자금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D, the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), despite the absence of the intent or ability to purchase a mortgage created on real estate and to keep a high rate of profits from the victims, even if having received money from the victims who are investors as investments, D’s business profitability is good for the victim E, F, G, H, and I, etc. on April 201, which can be seen as profits through an auction after purchasing the mortgage at a discounted rate from the financial company.

It is not absolute to use investment funds for the purpose of purchasing mortgage except for the purpose of purchase of mortgage, but to purchase mortgage and make profits from the purchase of mortgage.

“Falsely speaking to the effect that it was a “defiscation, by acquiring a total of KRW 270 million from the victims as a collateral purchase fund,” etc., and was indicted on February 13, 2015, which was convicted of having been sentenced by the Seoul Central District Court on the ground that it was obtained as a collateral purchase fund.

[2013 Highest 8045, 2014 Highest 1869 Combined), 2014 Highest 754 (Joint), 2014 Highest 754 (Joint), 2014 Highest 1904 (Joint), 2014 Highest 4236 (Joint), 2014 Highest 4237 (Joint), 2014 Highest 4768 (Joint), 2014 Highest 4768 (Joint), 2014 Highest 710 (Joint), as the above victims, invested KRW 30,000,000 in the investment amount for "business that can be seen as profit through an auction after purchasing a mortgage at a discount from the financial company."

2. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the primary cause of the instant claim. The Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the Defendant, an individual, or the Defendant and the two non-party companies regarding “business that can be seen as profit through an auction after purchasing at a discount of insolvent mortgage,” and the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the Defendant and the non-party company’s joint account in the name of the Defendant and the non-party company.