Claim for payment of seized Bonds

The relationship between the three parties is more closely related than one another, and if a loss is incurred due to investment, the non-party who is not the defendant is not the defendant. Therefore, the claim for the payment of seized claims filed by the plaintiff is groundless.

2015Na2004304

Korea

DBS Korea Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court 2014Kahap5356

April 29, 2015

June 12, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won with interest of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court’s ruling are to modify the part in which the entry of the reasons is omitted as follows:

In addition to adding the following judgments between conduct 14 and 15 of the first instance judgment:

Since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment, it is as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

this chapter.

2. The modified portion and the further determination

A. The modified part

In the end of paragraph 16 of Article 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “the entry of evidence No. 14 and the purport of the whole pleadings” is added.

section 3.

B. Additional determination

“(1) The Plaintiff is not an investment by ○○○ in the instant development project under the name of the Defendant, but an investment in the instant development project.

○○○○ acting on behalf of the Defendant that the Defendant was obliged to pay the investment to the Nonparty Company

Therefore, if the development project of this case is withdrawn, the defendant shall return the investment money to ○○○.

The author argues that the relationship must be the relationship.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, ○○, Defendant, and Nonparty Company

It is known that the following relations have been formed between them:

In other words, ○○ and the Defendant’s “instant agreement” and the Defendant and the Nonparty Company respectively “instant investment contract.”

Accordingly, the proportion of investment returns (50:50) between ○○ and the Defendant and the non-party association shall be determined and the ratio of investment returns (50:50) shall be determined.

The distribution ratio(30:70) between the officers shall be set, and the provisions in preparation for liquidation shall also be set.

In the event that development projects are withdrawn or investment losses occur, the day and the defendant shall Article IV of the Agreement.

Accordingly, the Defendant’s right to the instant agreement by returning the investment balance to ○○○.

On the other hand, the defendant and the non-party company have withdrawn the investment.

The non-party company shall pay the principal and interest of the investment to the defendant in accordance with the settlement agreement(s) of the investment contract.

the agreement of this case and the investment of this case, however, have agreed to liquidate their relations.

The contract was entered into on the same day, and ○○○ is the defendant’s new project head, leading the investment project.

The defendant, with respect to the recovery of the investment amount (No. 8) and the shares or shares of the non-party company

On the other hand, the ○○○ secured by the movable property (No. 2) and the acquisition of such security against the Defendant.

B did not at all (No. 3) and the payment of investment money also ○○○’s Agreement 1

Pursuant to this article, the non-party company was directly paid with its own funds on the same day.

As such, the relationship between the three parties, such as ○○○, the Defendant, and the Nonparty Company, is between ○○ and the Defendant.

The relationship between the defendant and the non-party company is interrupted and is more closely linked than an independent relationship.

Accordingly, the defendant is the defendant from the non-party company in case of loss caused by the above investment.

Even if the principal and interest of investment are not recovered, ○○○, not the Defendant, leading it.

agreement was reached between ○○ and the Defendant that the investment was withdrawn. Therefore, even if the investment was withdrawn, between ○○ and the Defendant

When the Defendant received a repayment of the principal and interest of investment from the non-party company, ○○ within the scope thereof.

Whether it is agreed to return the investment balance and whether the defendant has received repayment from the non-party company

Notwithstanding the above, it cannot be deemed that the ○○○ immediately agreed to return the remaining investment balance.

Then, as recognized above, the defendant actually made an investment from the non-party company.

As long as the defendant was not returned, the principal and interest of the investment to ○○○.

○○○○ is not required to return the investment balance (1) in the event of an advanced dismissal.

In reality, there is a right to claim the return of the principal and interest of investment or the balance of investment against the defendant.

We cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this premise without further review.

(2) The Plaintiff also assumes that the Defendant is also obligated to return the investment substitute to ○○○○.

Therefore, ○○○ may exercise this right, but the existence of an obligation is subject to confession in court.

In addition, the defendant is only the case where he collects the investment money from the non-party company.

Since the purport is to return to ○○, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit for the same reason as that of paragraph (1).

c)the return;

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with merit.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s appeal is justifiable, it is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

partnership.