(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단121932

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.04.06 2015가단121932

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

On August 2013, the Plaintiff was recommended by the Defendants to make an investment of KRW 100 million in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and borrowed KRW 15 million from E on August 29, 2013, and deposited KRW 15 million in the account of the Nonparty Company in the name of the Plaintiff, E, and the remaining KRW 45 million in the account of the Nonparty Company.

In accordance with the above investment, the non-party company increased 20,00 shares of the existing 10,000 shares (5,000 shares per share) and the plaintiff owned 12,00 shares of the total 30,00 shares (5,000 shares per share) (60,000 won per share), the defendant Eul owned 10,00 shares (amount of face value of 50,000 shares) and the defendant C owned 800 shares (amount of 40,000 won per share).

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, the defendants of the plaintiff’s assertion as to the main claim of Gap’s evidence Nos. 3 through 6, and the main claim of the entire pleadings are the defendants, around August 2013, 2013, after reducing the amount of the non-party company’s liabilities to KRW 30 million to the plaintiff and fraudulently concluding that the amount of KRW 100 million is KRW 220 million to the plaintiff. As such, the defendants are liable to compensate the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor for damages for the amount of KRW 100 million and delay damages.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 12, Eul evidence Nos. 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants for fraud with the same content as the above paragraph A, but it is recognized that the defendants was subject to a disposition that the defendants were not suspected of being issued on August 26, 2015, and in light of this, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 10, 14, and 15 and witness F's testimony alone led the defendants to reduce their liabilities to the plaintiff.

or such deception is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's primary claim.

The main point of the plaintiff's assertion on the conjunctive claim is that the non-party company's liabilities are high.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.04.24 2019가단119955

-인천지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단16629

-서울동부지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단22770

-서울남부지방법원 2017.02.08 2016가단214647

-수원지방법원안양지원 2013.10.22 2012가단27405