beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff’s establishment of the Chinese company and its investment funds (1) around 2001, the Defendant agreed to jointly establish the Damsan Tourism Development Center in the China Cheongdo, China. The Plaintiff invested the funds and independently operates the said limited construction, and signed a contract with Pyeongtaek City Tourism Development Center to provide land use rights and to receive profits from the operation of the said limited construction, and around that time, it established the said limited construction. 2) D transferred USD 620,00 in total to the said limited Chinese bank account from September 2001 to May 2003, 200 for the same period. For the same period, USD 990,000 was remitted in total to the same account in the name of E, F, G, Sinsan Tourism, H, I, and J golf clubs.
(C) Around 2006, the National People's Prosecutor's Office of Madong-si, China prosecuted the operator of the above limited liability company in relation to the investment of the instant case by fraud. The content of K's deception, thereby making a total of 1.6 million U.S. dollars (13 million U.S. dollars) more than 40 times by deceiving D, making a total of 1.6 million U.S. dollars (13 million U.S. dollars) invested by the Plaintiff by forging a letter of entrustment and certificate, and then changing the above amount to the amount invested by the Plaintiff by forging a certificate of entrustment and certificate, refusing the request for the return of D's investment funds known to the Plaintiff, and contrary to the initial agreement, the above limited liability company's management right was granted to L, one of its own children.
4) In the above criminal case, K ordered that the above funds were borrowed from M, N, andO by the above company, but the Cheong City Central People's Court recognized K's fraud on December 7, 2006 and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
B. On April 2007, when the above case was pending in a higher court, the Plaintiff and Defendant Doksch Rexroth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) filed an appeal by K to the above judgment, and the Plaintiff is a defendant corporation (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”).