logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.03.22 2017가단4169
편취금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 9, 2014, the Defendant written the following notes to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as "each letter of this case"). Each letter will deposit the amount above 10 million won in gold with no later than December 10, 2014 by no later than 11:00 a.m. on December 11, 2014. If this is possible, I will also be subject to criminal punishment.

On December 9, 2014, the Defendant entered C and D-(Omission) in lieu of the name of the principal, and entered the resident registration number of the Defendant’s Easter.

B. On February 12, 2015, the Defendant prepared the following cash custody certificates to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “the cash custody certificate of this case”). The cash custody certificate of this case will be deposited at the intermediate payment on May 31, 2015, with the amount equal to KRW 00,000,000,000,000. If so, I will be subject to criminal punishment.

On February 12, 2015, the Defendant entered C and E-(Omission) in lieu of the name of the principal and entered the Defendant’s resident registration number.

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

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s false statement that the Plaintiff would give the principal and profit after one month if the Plaintiff paid the unsold apartment investment bond to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 150 million by cash and check several times in around 2007, and the Defendant is obligated to return the said KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant received a total of KRW 24 million from the Plaintiff to October 2008 as the F apartment sale right investment amount from the Plaintiff during seven times from July 2008 to October 2008, but there is no obligation to pay KRW 60 million from 2009 to 2014.

When the plaintiff was aware of the plaintiff's husband who operated a lottery store and borrowed money from G, the plaintiff made a written statement of this case by requesting the defendant to prepare only one loan certificate before the husband is viewed as the husband.

After that, G and the Plaintiff forced to prepare a loan certificate at the same time, and prepared a cash custody certificate of this case in the state of coercion.

3...

arrow