beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. On April 9, 2014, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C invested KRW 80,00,00 in each of the investment of KRW 10,00,00 and KRW 100,00 in each of the investment of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff in each of the projects to develop the housing site development of one parcel, and the Plaintiff is in charge of the construction. ② The ratio of profit distribution seems to be 30.33% in each of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C (3.33% in each of the errors).
(2) At the time of the above investment contract, the Defendant agreed to pay the amount invested by the Plaintiff and the profit corresponding to the Plaintiff’s profit distribution rate if requested by the Plaintiff by November 30, 2014.
3) The Plaintiff has invested KRW 113,968,120 in total in excess of the amount originally agreed to make an investment in accordance with the said investment contract, but the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the said investment amount on or before November 30, 2014 as the business was supported by the said investment contract. However, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 32,968,120 among the said investment amount, and the Defendant did not receive the remainder of KRW 32,968,120. (b) However, the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant and C agreed to pay the investment amount and profit as alleged by the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties. However, it is insufficient to accept the Plaintiff’s agreement on whether the Defendant agreed to pay the investment amount and profit as alleged by the Plaintiff. ( even if the Defendant stated in subparagraph 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff, not the Defendant, agreed to pay the investment amount and profit to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is also obligated to pay the above investment amount and profit to the Plaintiff as the Defendant and E are actually the same investors. However, the fact that the aforementioned recognition alone appears to be that E is treated as the same investor as the Defendant, and that E separately agrees to return to the Plaintiff.