beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000 to the Defendant.
B. The Defendant purchased 40,000,000 bitcos at the Internet Bitco Exchange called C(D) on the same day, and sent them to E account in the name of the Plaintiff.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. On June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff alleged that the loan should be returned to the Defendant, since it lent KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on June 1, 2017. However, the Plaintiff’s primary assertion is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s loan solely with the evidence (including the serial number) of subparagraphs A through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is rejected.
B. The Plaintiff’s preliminary assertion (Guarantee Agreement on Principal) was based on the agreement that the Defendant should return the investment principal to the Plaintiff in accordance with the agreement, and thus, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should return the investment principal to the Plaintiff even if it is deemed that the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the investment principal. However, the aforementioned evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the investment principal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not accepted.
C. The Plaintiff asserts that, although the facts of the Defendant are merely multi-level recipients of illegal multi-level transactions, the Plaintiff recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment by stating that “E is not a multi-level recipient company, but a company that is able to believe,” and that it has made a long-term investment and made a lot of profits,” and that it should compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 40,000,000 by having the Plaintiff make an investment in E, thereby incurring property damage equivalent to the same amount.
The evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 10 alone refers to the fact that E is an illegal multi-level recipient company, and the defendant means that E is not a multi-level recipient company.