beta
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 February 2010, the Defendant proposed that the Defendant jointly operated Libya farming business, stating that “D, which takes a farming house in the Pabya field located in Pabya City in Paby City, may borrow 120 million won in the Pabya field.” D Han Han-gu, an investment of KRW 70 million in the amount of KRW 70 million, thereby cultivating Sa by cultivating Sa by cultivating Saby. In addition, the Defendant would pay the down payment of KRW 15 million in the existing expenses and additionally pay the down payment of KRW 55 million in the amount of KRW 65 million in the remainder.”
B. On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with each of the Defendant to jointly operate the Nauri Farming Business with each of the investment of KRW 70 million (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) without setting the duration between the Defendant, and on the same day, delivered KRW 70 million to the Defendant as an investment.
C. On March 5, 2010, the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer and acquisition of the right (facilities) to acquire the right to obtain premium of KRW 65 million between C and E (hereinafter “instant U.S. farm”) on the 17th, E and E, the spouse of the Plaintiff, with the amount of KRW 70,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff, to acquire the right to obtain premium of KRW 65,000,000,000,000,000 from the Plaintiff.
In 2010, the Plaintiff had been viewed as the enemy as a result of operating the instant U.S. farm during the period of 2010, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant around January 201 and demanded the Defendant to return KRW 70 million in the instant U.S. farm.
However, the defendant did not comply with the request for return of the plaintiff's contribution on the ground of occurrence of the enemy, and even thereafter, the defendant did not comply with the request.
E. In 2013, the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant did not intend to perform the investment obligation under the instant trade agreement, had no intention to do so, could induce the Plaintiff as if he had been aware of such intent, only 65 million U.S. farm premium.