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. The Defendant, along with C and D, agreed to conduct the business of processing and supplying recyclable plastics, and D are in charge of investment and C and the Defendant decided to take charge of business affairs.
B. Since then, D has discontinued the above business by having E participate in the above business.
The plaintiff decided to invest in the above project with C's recommendation, and transferred money to E's account several times.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap's 9 to 11, and 14 (including the serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff deposited KRW 15,640,000 in the E account on October 8, 2014, the amount of KRW 8,000 among them was embezzled by having the Defendant transfer KRW 8,00,000 to the account in his/her own name F. As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,00,000,000 as compensation for damages arising from the above tort.
B) According to the Defendant’s assertion that KRW 8,000,000 was paid by the Defendant to E and unrelated to the Plaintiff. (2) According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 14-1, it is recognized that the Defendant transferred KRW 15,646,050 to E’s account on October 8, 2014; and that KRW 8,000,000 was remitted from the above E’s account to the Defendant’s F’s account on October 10, 2014.
However, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff remitted the investment money to Eul's account and had E manage the above account until February 2015. It is recognized that Eul remitted the above amount of KRW 8,000,000 at the defendant's request. Considering these circumstances, it is difficult to recognize that the above facts of recognition and the entries in Gap evidence No. 6 through 8,12 constitute embezzlement of KRW 8,000 from the plaintiff (no evidence exists to deem that E conspired with the defendant) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.