beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 22, 2006 to December 23, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination
A. On May 15, 2006, the Plaintiff invested KRW 100,00,00 in D Adult Entertainment Business in Ansan-si, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to receive KRW 12.5% of monthly dividends, and paid the full amount of the investment to the Defendant by May 22, 2006. However, the business of adult entertainment was lost for 400,000,000 and the Defendant failed to pay dividends to the Plaintiff. After that, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the payment of dividends to the Defendant, the fact that the contract was cancelled by the delivery of the complaint (or at least at least on the second date for pleading) does not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1-4.
B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to refund or pay to the Plaintiff the statutory interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from May 22, 2006 to December 23, 2014, which is the delivery of the complaint, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the liability for the above obligation was exempted by the court in 2013 upon receiving the decision of exemption permission.
In addition, there was no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant received the decision of exemption from liability, and there was a decision of exemption from liability for household affairs.
Even if the Defendant did not enter the amount of investment under the above contract in the list of creditors with the knowledge of the existence of the amount of investment under the above contract at the time of the application for exemption, and the existence of the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment principal to the Plaintiff under the above contract is clear, as can be acknowledged in accordance with the entries in Gap evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings.