투자금
1. The Defendant: 35,00,000 won for Plaintiff A; 50,000,000 won for Plaintiff B; and 20,000,000 won for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 1, 2014, the Defendant paid 111% of the monthly investment proceeds as investment proceeds, and received KRW 4,000,000 from Plaintiff A as investment proceeds, on or around March 25, 2013, on condition that the investment principal is returned, and KRW 16,00,000,000 around April 2, 2013, and KRW 15,00,00,000 from Plaintiff A as investment proceeds, respectively.
B. On March 31, 2014, the Defendant paid 6% of the monthly investment amount as investment income, and received 50,000,000 won from Plaintiff B as investment income on or around April 3, 2013, subject to the return of the investment principal.
C. The Defendant paid 10% of the monthly investment amount as investment income, and received 20,000,000 won from Plaintiff C as investment money twice from April 16, 2013 to May 1, 2013 on the condition that the investment principal is returned after one year from the date of investment.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination and the defendant's argument
A. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 35,00,000 of investments, KRW 50,000 of investments, KRW 20,000 of investments, KRW 20,000 of investments, and KRW 20,000 of investments, to the Plaintiff C after the due date for payment, as the Plaintiffs seek after the due date, from February 5, 2015 to September 30, 2015, the record clearly is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and the statutory interest rate of the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015).
B. The defendant's assertion is asserted that the defendant would return the investment amount if the investment amount exists, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.