beta
Text
The Defendant’s KRW 109,090,909 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from July 16, 2016 to September 10, 2020.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a stock company that runs the design of Grandland and related construction business, and the Defendant is a stock company that runs the business of financial investment under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act.
B. On November 14, 2014, the original and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on consultation (hereinafter “instant consultation”) with respect to a project that the Plaintiff raises funds to build transmission lines, transformation stations, etc. in C (hereinafter “instant project”).
The main contents of the above advisory contract shall be as specified in attached Form 1.
C. Around April 2015, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to suspend the instant advisory service, and accordingly, the Defendant suspended the performance of the said advisory service.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff’s Defendant is also the Gu that the Plaintiff’s credit financial system for the buyer’s credit financial system also becomes the borrower, which is the Korea Electric Power Agency, and the supplier’s credit financial system is the Gu that becomes the supplier (Plaintiff) or the investor.
In the case of “A supplier’s credit financial instruments”, it is also difficult for the investor to participate in the instant project. It was impossible to grasp that the investor’s participation in the project was changed to a credit financial instrument for a supplier, not a supplier, and due to the Defendant’s negligence, the instant advisory contract was impossible to be implemented, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant advisory contract around April 2015 (or around July 15, 2016 according to the evidence No. 6). Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 241,818,182, which the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.
(hereinafter referred to as “principal”). Even if the advisory contract of this case was terminated not by cancellation, the Defendant’s gross negligence incurred by the Plaintiff.