(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.01 2019가단7720

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.01 2019가단7720

투자금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around 2013, the Defendant started the aggregate extraction business (hereinafter “instant business”) in the Namwon-si, Namwon-si.

B. On June 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant as an investment deposit in relation to the instant business, and the Defendant issued the following certificates of borrowing to the Plaintiff:

on June 27, 2014, the borrowed amount of KRW 50 million shall be borrowed on June 27, 2014, with interest-free, and shall pay KRW 100 million at the time of repayment of the borrowed amount.

The period of use shall not exceed one year and six months, and may be settled even before it.

C. By February 2016, the Defendant returned 50 million won to the Plaintiff the invested principal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay the investment principal of KRW 50 million and the investment principal of KRW 50 million, even though the defendant paid the investment principal of KRW 50 million and KRW 50 million, and thus, he/she should pay the investment income of KRW 50 million and its delay damages.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the business of this case did not have a duty to pay investment profits since the loss occurred.

B. Ordinary investment profits are distributed according to the ratio of investment funds or the content of the profit distribution contract in the case of investment profits in the case of investment profits in the business, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant generated profits in the business of this case only with Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

[On the other hand, although the plaintiff's assertion was decided to pay 50 million won to the plaintiff regardless of the result of the defendant's distribution of investment profits in the business of this case, unlike the ordinary distribution method of investment profits in this case, regardless of the fact that the defendant made profits in the business of this case, the evidence No. 2 of this case (the

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2013.09.27 2013고단685

-전주지방법원남원지원 2016.09.21 2015가단10739

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가합3653

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가합2722

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단127552