logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2017.12.12 2017가단4018
투자금반환
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 125,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The defendant's basic facts are the omission of plaintiff's wife's death.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 170,00,000 to the Defendant on January 9, 2015, KRW 90,000,000 on January 30, 2015, KRW 10,000 on February 10, 2015, KRW 20,000 on February 24, 2015, KRW 170,000 on May 26, 2015, and KRW 170,00,000 on May 26, 2015; the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the aggregate of KRW 5,00,000 on December 26, 2016, KRW 10,000 on December 28, 2016, KRW 10,000 on October 10, 200, and KRW 105,000 on May 10, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff invested the above KRW 170,00,000 for the investment of the defendant who had operated the business of selling the commercial buildings in Kim Sea at the time, and that the defendant agreed to pay KRW 70,000,000 for the investment revenue at the time. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 55,00,000 for the investment principal (= KRW 170,000,000 - KRW 115,00,000 for the investment revenue) and KRW 125,00,000 for the agreed investment revenue.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant's above 170,000,000 won paid by the plaintiff is not an investment loan but an investment loan, and there is no agreement to pay 70,000,000 won of the investment profit. Thus, the defendant's assertion that only the balance of the loan is 5,00,000 won.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above 170,000,000 won was invested and the defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as investment income, in addition, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as a whole by adding up the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 through 4 including the purport of the entire pleadings:

At the time, the Plaintiff was issued a sales contract for the above C commercial building Nos. 304, 305, and 307 with the purchaser as the Plaintiff.

On May 11, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 100,000,000 from the Defendant, as above, and thereafter, the Defendant “at the time one of the detention was paid, 10,000,000 won was used for six months, and paid KRW 30,000 after three months after the principal was paid.”

arrow