(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나6761 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2015.01.22 2014나6761

투자금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The defendant is a person who manufactures and sells functional health foods under the trade name of "C".

B. Around January 2013, C, the president of C, made investment in the Plaintiff at the same time, “If it invests in the Defendant’s business that sells health functional foods through online shopping mall, it is possible to receive investment profits in KRW 10,000 per annum (300,000 won) except for holidays from the third day to the third day, and if it is re-investment in the investment profits, it takes a larger profit with welfare, and at any time, returns the investment in the event of a business problem.” On January 21, 2013, D, the Plaintiff made investment in the business conducted by the Defendant (30,000 won).

C. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 26,571,00 of the Plaintiff’s principal and interest on investment by entering into an investment agreement, such as not paying the profit or paying the income at will, and suspended the business from July 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of 26,571,000 won and damages for delay thereof, and even if not, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff for damages as a joint tortfeasor who deceiving the Plaintiff along with E and F, the actual business owner of the above “C”, and by deceiving the Plaintiff with 30 million won.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff claiming the return of the principal and interest of an investment appears to have sought payment of the unpaid amount of interest and interest on the premise that there was an agreement between the parties to guarantee the payment of the principal of the investment and the amount of profits at the time of the investment. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was such an agreement, and as a general rule, the term “investment” bears the risk of not guaranteeing the recovery of the principal of the investment or the return of profits at the cost of expectation that it is possible to obtain high-profit profits, unlike the “loan,” and thus, the fact that the investor

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2014.03.18 2013가단6035

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2020.05.14 2020고단61

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2013.02.19 2013고정70

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.16 2013고단2733

-서울북부지방법원 2014.10.17 2014고단672