beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s 61,200,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from April 19, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendants joined the 48 sequences organized by the Defendants (4,000,000 won per month), and paid 88,800,000 in the deposit amount from January 201 to April 2015. However, around that time, the Defendants aggravated their financial ability, thereby leading up to the said guidance.
On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) subscribed to the said fraternity and received KRW 94,200,000 from the Defendant, but did not pay KRW 27,60,000 from May 4, 2015 to April 4, 2016. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 88,80,000, deducting the said KRW 27,60,000 from the said fraternity payment amount of KRW 88,800,000, and the damages for delay thereof.
2. As to the determination on the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff paid 8,800,000 fraternity to Defendant B from January 4, 2012 to April 2015, and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 94,20,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 27,60,000 to the Defendant from May 4, 2015 to April 4, 2016, the fact that the Plaintiff did not dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, or that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 27,60,00 from May 4, 2015 to April 4, 2016 is recognized by the purport of the entire statements and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 5, Eul and 2, and the Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of KRW 61,20,00 to the Plaintiff from April 19, 2016 to the day after the aforementioned payment date.
3. In light of the determination of the claim against Defendant C, and the fact-finding results of the E-Dong of this court, the fact-finding between Defendant C and Defendant B is acknowledged, but it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant C received the money from the Plaintiff as a joint principal agent with Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant C seeking the return of the money from Defendant C on the premise that Defendant C is a joint principal agent is without merit.
4. Conclusion.