beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 207,50,000 as well as 20% per annum from February 28, 2015 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, as a person running a credit business, divided into dialogues between Defendant B and Vitice Center, a middle school line, around February 2012, regarding the acquisition of Defendant B and Vitice Center, and the following year:
3. 12. The same year: 100,000,000 won to an account in the name of Defendant C, a de facto marital spouse in Defendant B;
3. On June 16, 198, remitted KRW 33,000,00 to Defendant B’s account and KRW 129,50,000 to Defendant C’s account respectively.
B. Defendant B, immediately following the acquisition of the emblem center located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant emblem”) under the name of Defendant C, disbursed the above money transferred as above to the lease deposit, construction cost, advertisement expenses, etc. of the pertinent building, and used some of the profits during the considerable period of time as living expenses, etc. while operating the instant emblem center.
C. Defendant B: (a) on June 1, 2012, in the course of operating the Center, KRW 20,000,000; and (b) on the same year.
7. 31.15,000,000 won, and the same year.
9. A total of KRW 55,000,000,000, including 20,000, was remitted to the Plaintiff.
In addition, from July 2013 to December 2014, Defendant B frequently remitted the total of KRW 7,540,480 to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 7,540,480 in the number of KRW 10,000 from July 2013 to December 2014. This is the deposit of the amount equivalent to the cost of using the studio paid each month by the members of the Center.
In around 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the instant volatilen Center, and subsequently acquired the amount received as the acquisition price by deceiving the principal and income within six to eight months, and filed a complaint against the Defendants for fraud.
However, on January 16, 2015, the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office issued a non-guilty disposition against the Defendants on the ground that "the point at which the principal is returned between the parties may be in dispute by interpretation."
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers if there are serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul.