logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.11 2017나82
투자금 반환
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2010, the Plaintiff drafted a “investment agreement implementation document” with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”) with the following content.

1. On February 23, 2010, the Plaintiff invested KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant and invested KRW 20,000,000 after March 5, 2010.

(2) On March 8, 2010, the Defendant shall pay 500,000 won per annum to the Plaintiff on March 8, 2010.

6. When the plaintiff desires to recover the investment funds invested in the defendant, he/she shall make a written request three months in advance, and the defendant shall submit a written request and return the amount invested by the plaintiff three months prior to the receipt of the written request.

(c).

The plaintiff is the account of C, which was the representative director of the defendant at the time, the amount of KRW 10 million on February 22, 2010, and the same year.

3. 5.1 million won, and the same month;

8. 20 million won, and the same year.

4.7.50 million won was remitted respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to KRW 50 million on February 22, 2010, as indicated in paragraph (1) of the investment agreement of this case.

3. 5.1 million won;

8. The same year as KRW 20 million.

4. Although the Plaintiff invested KRW 10 million among KRW 50 million on July 1, 200, the Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiff a profit ( KRW 500,000 per month). The Plaintiff seek a return of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint, and a return of the profit from March 201 to November 2015 from March 2010 to November 2015 (=50,000 won) x 69 months.

B. First of all, as to whether the Plaintiff invested KRW 50 million to the Defendant in accordance with the instant investment agreement, each of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-3, and Gap evidence Nos. 6 is sufficient to examine whether the Plaintiff invested KRW 50 million in accordance with the instant investment agreement, and the same year from February 22, 2010.

4. Until July, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant invested KRW 50 million in the Defendant.

arrow