beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2.A request for intervention by an independent party made by this Court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. A network cable corporation was preparing to supply IMDU, optical cable and home office Internet (which are communication equipment necessary to connect IMU, optical cable and home office Internet; hereinafter “instant communications equipment”). Defendant B and C, a couple of couple, were in consultation with the network cable corporation to obtain the headquarters for the manufacture of the instant communications equipment.
B. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff recommended Defendant B to “on payment of KRW 100 million, to supply the instant communications equipment produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendants’ side,” and transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant C’s account (hereinafter “instant KRW 100 million”).
C. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff established a participant company, and was appointed as its representative director. D.
In order to produce gold necessary for the production of the instant communications equipment (see, e.g., evidence A (see, e., evidence 5) and from January 15, 2015 to F’s account, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 46.2 million to F’s account (hereinafter “the gold production cost of this case”).
E. Since then, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) was established, and Defendant C assumed office as the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd on May 28, 2015, and Defendant B as the auditor of the Defendant Co., Ltd on the same day.
F. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to Defendant B and C a content-certified mail to the effect that “The Plaintiff sought the return of the instant KRW 100 million on the ground that the instant communications equipment supply contract has not been concluded (Evidence B No. 48 through 40),” and that, on October 8, 2015, Defendant B and C sent a content-certified mail to the Plaintiff that “the instant KRW 100 million was invested in business expenses and cannot be returned.”
(No. 4, No. 41 or 43). 【Ground for Recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s No. 1, 2, 4, Eul’s No. 1, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Plaintiff 1’s Defendants are the Plaintiff’s KRW 100 million and gold production cost 4.