beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination
A. On April 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for restitution on the ground of cancellation with the Defendant, and entered into an investment contract with the Defendant by paying KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the principal and the profits every month to the Plaintiff every five years from the conclusion of the said investment contract in accordance with the said investment contract. The Plaintiff’s delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to cancel the said investment contract. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the investment amount of KRW 500,00,000, and the delay damages therefrom.
The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without any need to examine the remaining points, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that an investment contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the grounds that the testimony of Gap’s evidence 2, 8, and 9, evidence 1, and evidence 7-2, each of the images of Gap’s evidence 7-2, witness C, and Eul’s testimony is difficult to acknowledge the fact
B. The Plaintiff asserts that, if the Defendant conspireds with E to make an investment of KRW 500,00,000,000 in total, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 500,000 to the Defendant for five years as if the Plaintiff were to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and profit each month. Accordingly, the Plaintiff got paid KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff around April 17, 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 500,000,000 as compensation for damages caused by the tort.
However, the tort of a juristic person under Article 35(1) of the Civil Act is established when a representative agency commits a tort in connection with his duties. The "director or other representative" in the above provision refers to a representative agency of a juristic person, and a director who has no power of representation is an agency of a juristic person but is not a representative agency, so his act constitutes a tort of a juristic person.