beta
Text
The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
The plaintiffs' litigation costs.
Reasons
1. Judgment on the plaintiffs' primary claims
A. The summary of the Plaintiffs’ assertion: (a) around April 16, 2019, by deceiving the Plaintiffs to the effect that “When us deposits KRW 3,564,00,000 to us, us shall make an investment in the company “E” and pay interest of KRW 180,000 won per day; and (b) he/she shall return all principal after one year,” and (c) he/she received KRW 3,564,00 from the Plaintiffs to the Defendant C’s account on April 16, 2019; (d) the Defendants, in collusion with the actual operators, such as actively soliciting investments to the Plaintiffs for the purpose of receiving profits, recommendation allowances, etc. on the ground of E’s investment source, acquired the above money from the Plaintiffs by taking part in or aiding and abetting the tort at least.
Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay each of 3,5640,000 won and delayed damages to the plaintiffs as joint tort damages.
B. According to each statement of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, 8, and Eul's evidence No. 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiffs, when investing in E company with the introduction of the defendants around April 16, 2019, remitted each amount of KRW 3,564,000 to the defendant Eul's account. On the same day, although the contract for the above investment amount was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs as the investors, it is recognized that the above fact of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs were insufficient to deem that the defendants fraudulently acquired the investment amount by deceiving the plaintiffs.
It is insufficient to recognize otherwise, and there is no other evidence to prove this (A) (A) there was a complaint filed by the Plaintiffs as a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Act, which was in violation of the Act on the Regulation of Fraud and Similar Receiving Act, but the Defendants appear to have been an intermediate recruitment as an investor invested in Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office on October 8, 2020, and the Defendants actually operated E or conspired with the actual operator.
It is difficult to conclude that the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiffs to make investments.