beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. On October 2015, upon D’s recommendation, the Plaintiffs joined as a member of the E-E (hereinafter “E”) body that D’s representative. The Plaintiffs’ investment funds to the said D’s club were transferred to the said D’s new bank account. If the Plaintiffs were to transfer the funds to the Defendant, the F, who was in charge of the said account, transferred the funds to the Defendant, and the Defendant finally transferred the funds to the instant club.
B. Plaintiff A remitted 63,66,00 won of investment to D’s new bank account, and Plaintiff B remitted 63,719,000 won of investment to D’s new bank account. On October 6, 2016, F, which was managing the said account, remitted KRW 150,000,000 in total to the Defendant’s national bank account.
C. However, the Defendant did not transfer the Plaintiffs’ investment funds to the instant club, and the Defendant is obligated to return the funds that the Plaintiffs remitted to the Plaintiffs due to compensation for damages or unjust enrichment arising from the tort.
2. It is recognized that the plaintiffs remitted money, such as the plaintiffs' claim, to the accounts of D, and that F remitted money of KRW 150 million to the defendant, including that.
However, the Defendant continued to lend money to D and appears to have a loan claim (No. 1 to No. 23). The Defendant promised to again transfer the money to the instant club before receiving the remittance of KRW 150 million.
In light of the fact that there is no evidence to see that the Defendant received or received such a request, it is difficult to deem that there was any error in appropriating part of KRW 150 million transferred by the Defendant ($ 64500,000 out of USD 150,000,000 to G, who is the son of D), for the repayment of the loan claims against its own D, and the fact that the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Defendant as embezzlement but the disposition that the Defendant was unsuspected (Evidence 3) was issued (Evidence 3).