logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 2018.01.31 2016나1693
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From February 16, 2009, Defendant B served as the Vice Minister at the KF L branch of the NA and from March 1, 2010, as the head office at the KF branch of the NA, and Defendant C, as a student of Defendant B, was in the same line with the Plaintiff and clothes.

B. The Defendants received profits from Defendant B’s pro-friendly job offering E or from a lending business entity run by Defendant C from around 2005, and the Plaintiff, which became aware of such facts from Defendant C, asked Defendant C to introduce Defendant B to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was entitled to receive 1.5 million won per month (1.5% per month) by sending money to Defendant B, but from June 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to lower the profit rate of 10 million won per month (1.5% per month).

3) Accordingly, from November 11, 2009 to April 29, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the total of KRW 1.1 billion to the account under the name of Defendant B or Defendant C for four times from November 11, 2009 to April 29, 2010, and Defendant B and C delivered KRW 1.1 billion out of the said money to E, and received profits from E and remitted KRW 8.4 million to the Plaintiff upon receiving profits from E (i.e., transferring KRW 1 billion to October 11, 2010) (i.e., KRW 100 million out of the Plaintiff’s investment money to be returned without making an investment to E, as seen later.

(C) The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants (1) around October 2010 to start a new business, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant B and C to return the said investment amount of KRW 1 billion. The Defendant B demanded the return of the said amount to Defendant B, and the contact was interrupted with E to recover the principal thereafter.

2 The Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant B and C on the charge of fraud, around November 2010, as the Plaintiff had a problem in the recovery of the said investment amount and the proceeds therefrom were not received.

The investigative agency did not establish a crime of fraud against the suspected facts of the defendant B and C, and instead "the defendant B".

arrow