(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.06.10 2019가단81397

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.06.10 2019가단81397

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant entered into an operation consignment agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) in which C is practically operating as an unincorporated association that is a religious organization, and with respect to the business of the C inurnal Party.

C was responsible for raising investment funds from investors such as the Plaintiff.

B. Around 2015, the Plaintiff was solicited to invest in the operation of a charnel house from C, and a total of KRW 105,000,000,000 was remitted to C by lending money necessary for the projects promoted by the Defendant to make a fixed profit.

C. The Plaintiff invested KRW 105,00,000 under an agreement with the Defendant and C who was delegated to develop by the Defendant, but the Defendant and C did not pay the agreed interest that was not completed.

This is in violation of the investment contract, which becomes the ground for termination according to the statutory termination or the consignment contract, and the defendant also approved the return cycle. Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the amount of KRW 105,00,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion of determination is based on the premise that the Plaintiff invested KRW 105,00,000 to the Defendant in relation to the business of the Defendant’s salary market.

However, in light of the following points, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff invested KRW 105,00,000 to the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s salary project only with the evidence of evidence Nos. 6-9, A12, and 13, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion based on this premise cannot be accepted.

1. The evidence No. 6 denies the establishment of the Defendant, which cannot be used as evidence due to lack of evidence to prove the establishment of the said evidence.

Even if the authenticity is recognized, if an investment relating to the sealed project is made, the investor will prepare an investment contract with the Defendant and then appear to have deposited the amount in the Defendant’s account (Evidence 1 and 2), and the Plaintiff’s investment money.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.11.19 2015나21120

-대법원 2015.12.10.선고 2015두2284 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합7001

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가합50574

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.07.08 2015가합1840