logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.02.17 2020가단5034847
손해배상(기)
Text

Defendant B’s KRW 35,00,000 and for this, 5% per annum from November 3, 2015 to February 17, 2020.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) sells stocks of an unlisted company at a price higher than the purchase price after purchasing them, and then sells them to investors at a price higher than the purchase price, and, if the profit-making time for investors to continue to manage and dispose of stocks on behalf of investors arrives, D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) sells them to an institution investors, etc. with a block with a profit.

of this case, it is necessary to establish a private investment association or an undisclosed investment association under the pretext of investing in a particular item of investment, etc. to invite investments, and to pay the remaining investment amount after deducting the management remuneration from the total amount of investment in the relevant investment project, and then making an investment in the relevant investment project.

An investor raised investment funds from investors by way of determining terms and conditions of the agreement.

Defendant B, the representative director of D, was responsible for overall management of D's operations.

on August 21, 2015, 30,000 F (G) August 27, 2015, 2018. 5,000,000 H (I) October 5, 200,000 J (K) on September 10, 2015, 30,000 on November 5, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff, who worked as the head of the business team in D at the time indicated below’s “date of contract”, entered into an investment contract with D with regard to each of the items indicated in the “name of contract” (hereinafter “instant investment contract”) and paid each amount indicated in the “investment amount” as investment money.

(c)

D was indicted for the violation of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Market Act”) around 2015, and its executives and employees, including Defendant B, were convicted of the violation of the Act on the Regulation of Compared Receipt (hereinafter “pseudo Receipt Act”) (Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2015 Dang District Court 4570, 4664, 4927, 5342, 5342)), and the executives and employees of Defendant B and D were convicted on December 3, 2018.

(d)

The appellate court of the above judgment (Seoul Southern District Court 2018No. 2462) is Defendant B and D among the judgment of the first instance on June 4, 2019.

arrow