beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
On June 2018, the Plaintiff received from C (the deceased on June 2018, 2018, hereinafter “the deceased”) a check number of shares (the date of issuance, July 18, 2018, hereinafter “the check number E”); and paid KRW 95.2 million to the Deceased (hereinafter “the instant discount”).
The plaintiff presented the check of the number of units of this case on the date of payment, but was refused to pay due to the shortage of deposits.
The defendant is the representative director of Corporation D.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff. The defendant is obligated to pay the above amount of money to the plaintiff, in collusion with the deceased with the plaintiff, after being aware of the fact that it is impossible to pay the above amount of money from the beginning. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the above amount of money to the plaintiff.
Judgment
In other words, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge that, from September 27, 2016 to September 20, 2018, the Plaintiff had engaged in transactions with the Deceased at discounted the number of units of D issuance and the number of promissory notes, including the check of the number of units in this case. Until the Deceased dies, there is no call or contact with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff refused payment of promissory notes issued by D Co., Ltd. at the request of the Deceased around May 2018, upon the Plaintiff’s refusal of payment on the part of the Plaintiff, “the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff through the Deceased without the capacity to pay a promissory note, and acquired KRW 6,72,40,00 from the Plaintiff under the pretext of the discount of the said promissory notes. However, in light of the evidence presented by the Defendant from the Daegu District Prosecutor’s Office on June 29, 202, the Defendant did not have any suspicion of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the promissory notes, etc.