beta
Text
1. The Defendants: (a) each Plaintiff KRW 115,650,894; and (b) as to Defendant B from February 9, 2017, the Defendants were to each of the Plaintiff on October 2017.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as follows: Gap evidence No. 6 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings.
Around July 29, 2015, the Defendants conspired to acquire household appliances, such as the purchase price, etc., and concluded that “F will purchase household appliances, such as air conditioners installed at the front page, on the ground that the Plaintiff was engaged in the construction business and completed the sale of the apartment in the apartment area in the Gyeong-do, Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, the Plaintiff was falsely concluding that “F will purchase household appliances, such as air conditioners installed at the front page.”
However, in fact, F did not have any apartment model voucher, nor did the Defendants conclude that the Defendants would sell the household unit product in a container. Therefore, even if the Defendants received the said money from the Plaintiff, F did not have any intent or ability to purchase the household unit product in a container.
The Defendants, as such, by deceiving the Plaintiff, received KRW 2 million from the Plaintiff to the post office account (G) in the name of Defendant B on the same day, and acquired KRW 13,350,000 from around that day to October 26, 2016, a sum of KRW 21,33,00,000 from the name of purchase of household appliances, employment recommendation, and purchase of apartment sale rights, as shown in attached Table 1.
B. On October 15, 2015, the Defendants conspired to obtain the secondhand payment, and concluded that “Around October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff shall not be registered in the name of us in the name of us at the Plaintiff’s home located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun,” and that “I will pay the principal and interest of each month if the Plaintiff purchased a secondhand motor vehicle in the name of the Party and received the loan from the KB Capital.”
However, the defendants did not have the intent or ability to pay the principal and interest of each month even if they purchased a motor vehicle with a used vehicle loan under the name of the plaintiff.
The defendants deceiving the plaintiff as such and let the plaintiff do so on their own job.