beta
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 made an investment of KRW 200 million in each of the plaintiff and proposed that the defendant will accept and operate the D points together. The plaintiff accepted the defendant's proposal and invested KRW 95.3 million in D, but the defendant did not invest KRW 200 million in one's own money, but invested KRW 200 million in one's own money under the name of the third party established by the plaintiff and the defendant as if the defendant was the one's own money.
As such, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has invested the above KRW 95,30,00 by deceiving the defendant, and thus the above investment is revoked through the complaint of this case.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 95.3 million won with 15% interest per annum from the day after the day when the copy of the complaint of this case is served to the day of complete payment.
2. According to the overall purport of each statement and argument set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million with the acquisition and operation funds of D points on August 16, 2012, KRW 30 million, KRW 130 million on September 13, 2012, KRW 75 million on January 15, 2013, KRW 203 million on the Plaintiff’s investment in D points on September 2, 2012, KRW 30 billion on the Plaintiff’s investment of KRW 20,300,000 on September 27, 2012, and KRW 15 million on January 15, 2013, KRW 2030,000 on the Plaintiff’s investment in E (C points).
However, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 3 and 4, are examined, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff to invest KRW 200 million in the D amount with pure money, and it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant received a loan under the name of the Plaintiff E (C) and invested KRW 200 million in the D point using the loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to the statement No. 5, ①.