logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.10.05 2014가합208
투자금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B, who carried on the business with D, operated the scrapping place (hereinafter “instant scrapping place”) from July 1, 201 to “E” (the business registration was made in the name of Defendant C, who is the wife), and Defendant B operated the scrapping place (hereinafter “instant scrapping place”). Defendant B provided operating funds (such as purchase funds for scrapping, office operation expenses, etc.) and D operated the scrapping place.

B. The Plaintiff, upon the recommendation of D, remitted a total of KRW 264 million to the accounts of F, etc. designated by D for the purpose of investing in the instant scrap pool business as follows.

The remittance amount from the date of remittance 1: F 30 million won on January 24, 2013; KRW 50 million on February 6, 2013; KRW 20 million on May 16, 2013, G 420 million on May 27, 2013; KRW 50 million on June 1, 2013; KRW 620 million on June 2, 2013; KRW 719 million on June 3, 2013; KRW 80 million on June 3, 2013; KRW 80 million on June 5, 2013; KRW 1.6 million on June 1, 2013; KRW 1.6 million on June 1, 2013; KRW 1.6 million on June 3, 2013; KRW 1.6 million on June 1, 2003; KRW 1.6 million on June 16, 2013

다. 한편 D은 2013. 6. 6. 원고가 송금한 위 2억 6,400만 원의 반환을 담보할 목적으로 ‘피고 C은 I(원고의 남편)에게 버스 94대[서울교통네트웍(주) 소유 버스 45대 한성여객운수(주) 소유 버스 3대 한국비알티자동차(주) 소유 버스 46대]를 양도한다’는 내용의 자동차양도증명서(이하 ‘이 사건 자동차양도증명서’라 한다)를 I에게 작성하여 주었다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including a provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) In relation to the business of the automobile-scrapping of this case, defendant B was provided with business funds, the defendant C was provided with the name of the business operator, and D operated the automobile-scrapping jointly. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendants and D were in the same business relationship for the operation of the automobile-scrapping of this case. 2) D was invested in the automobile-scrapping of this case in the plaintiff.

arrow