logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 제천지원 2017.03.08 2016가단20707
투자금 반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From September 2012, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, E, and F invested KRW 500,00,000, KRW 300,000,000, KRW 1000,000, KRW 50,000, KRW 500,000, and KRW 50,000, KRW 50,000, and KRW 50,000,000, and they established a stock company, and they jointly operate the business of manufacturing and selling carbon calcium (hereinafter “instant business agreement”), and after paying the investment under the said agreement, they owned KRW 1,00,00, KRW 1,000,00, KRW 00, KRW 5,000, KRW 1,000, KRW 000, KRW 5,0000, KRW 5000, and KRW 5,000, KRW 300, shares issued by the Plaintiffs, respectively.

B. The Defendant currently served as the representative director of the instant company, and the Plaintiffs were employed by the instant company from the time of its incorporation to August 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On or around August 2013, the Defendant, which caused the claim, will receive a loan and return the investment money to the Plaintiffs when settling the accounts of the corporation on or around March 2014.

“The Agreement was concluded.”

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 100,000,000, and the amount of KRW 50,000,000, and each of the above amounts to the Plaintiff B with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment, Gap evidence No. 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), G phone calls to the defendant as the deceased or his/her agent around April 29, 2016, and G calls to the defendant in the above telephone conversations, which read that "the defendant would have been able to pay the investment amount if the situation is good," and the defendant responded to "e.g.," and G.

arrow