beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.
Reasons
1. The reason why the court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the first instance court's decision, except for the case where "D" in Section 13 of the second instance court's decision is changed to "I", "No. 4,900 weeks in case of G which is the representative director of the company outside the country, and No. 1,940 weeks in case of G which is the representative director of the company outside the country, and No. 1,940 weeks in case of C which is the representative director of the non-party company, and G which is the actual operator of the non-party company, to "No. 1,940 weeks in case of the non-party company, 4,90
2. Determination on the main claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) around January 2004, the plaintiff argued that "a person shall return the principal within three months if he/she invests in the non-party company's sales business that is the largest shareholder, and five to ten times the principal with profits after the sale." On January 16, 2004, the plaintiff transferred KRW 110 million to the non-party company's account designated by the defendant. However, the defendant did not inform the plaintiff that he/she could not receive the principal when he/she failed to sell the business, or did not inform the plaintiff that he/she could not receive the return of principal when he/she failed to sell the business, or violated the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Business. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally obligated to pay the above KRW 110 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff's business in order to invest the non-party company's sales business, and it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred the money to the non-party company's whole statement and the purport of the plaintiff's pleading as stated above.
However, only the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, the Defendant conspiredd with C, the representative director of the non-party company, by deceiving the Plaintiff.
In case of failure in the sale business, the duty of disclosure was not notified to the Plaintiff that the principal could not be returned.
or the defendant.