투자금반환
1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as its annual 6% from October 23, 2014 to January 15, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. According to each of the statements in subparagraphs A1 and 2 of the basic facts, on July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed with the Defendant (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the same content as that of the attached document, and on the same day, recognized that the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million in the Defendant on the same day.
2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant set up the notarial deed of this case and agreed to refund the investment principal at least when it does not guarantee the profit of the plaintiff who is the investor, or when it does not guarantee it to the plaintiff. However, since no measure was taken to guarantee the profit of the plaintiff, the plaintiff must return the investment principal KRW 100 million according to the notarial deed of this case.
In addition, since the representative director C of the defendant agreed to return the investment amount of KRW 100 million, the defendant should return the investment principal to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. In light of the overall interpretation of the text of each of the instant notarial deeds, the overall purport of the interpretation is to pay 15% of the profits earned by the Defendant from the sale of finished products produced by the Defendant with the Plaintiff’s investment funds to the Plaintiff as profit, and if the sum of the profits paid as above reaches KRW 130 million to the Plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff paid at least KRW 300,000,000 from October 1, 2014, and if the sum of the profits paid as above reaches KRW 130,000,000,000, it shall be deemed that the Plaintiff paid all the investment funds to the Plaintiff. However, if no profit was incurred due to the Plaintiff’s investment funds, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone does not reveal whether the Defendant sold finished products produced by receiving the Plaintiff’s investment funds and obtained profits therefrom, and if so, the amount thereof would be much. According to the entries in B 12, witness D and E’s testimony, the Defendant’s closure of business on June 1, 2015, and is normally cosmetics.