logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.10.10 2014가단4876
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,950,00 for Plaintiff A and KRW 11,667,300 for Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10 (including branch numbers), the plaintiffs shall make an investment in the defendant in order to operate the "E" located in Kimhae-si (hereinafter referred to as the "instant restaurant") with the defendant around February 2013. The plaintiffs A made an investment in the defendant, and the plaintiff B made an investment in KRW 31,950,00, and KRW 11,657,300 (hereinafter referred to as the "each of the instant investments") with respect to each of the said funds, and the defendant promised to return the said investments to the plaintiffs around April 2013.

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Plaintiffs suffered damages by destroying the entrance of the instant restaurant, which the Plaintiffs corrected, and arbitrarily altering the entrance’s correction device, and then transferring the instant restaurant to Nonparty F on April 16, 2013. However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant committed tort as claimed by the Plaintiffs.

Therefore, the primary claim of the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. According to the facts of the judgment on the conjunctive claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 31,950,00 of investments, KRW 11,67,300 of investments, and KRW 11,67,300 of investments, and delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from March 6, 2014 to October 10, 2014, the date following the day when the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to seek performance is served on the Defendant, which includes the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint to the Defendant, to the Defendant.

The plaintiffs filed for the payment of damages for delay from April 30, 2013, but the plaintiffs filed for the payment to the defendant of this case before the above date and the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

arrow