(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.01 2016나53005

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) 부산지방법원 2017.12.01 2016나53005

투자금 반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 9,00,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from August 18, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff drafted an investment agreement and a consignment investment agreement between D and the representative of Investment Company C (hereinafter “Investment Company C”) (hereinafter “Investment Company C”) with the content that the Plaintiff is to entrust the investment by setting 12% of profit rate of 10 million won and 6 months from the date of deposit of the investment period (hereinafter “each of the above agreements”) as the instant investment agreement.

B. On August 18, 2014, pursuant to the instant investment agreement, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant investment”) to the account in the name specified as C’s deposit account under the instant investment agreement.

C. D transferred KRW 9 million out of the instant investment amount to the Defendant’s account on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the Defendant is liable as a party to the instant investment agreement

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) Plaintiff D explained to the Plaintiff that KRW 1 million out of the instant investment amount was invested by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff consented thereto and made up the instant investment agreement. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said KRW 9 million and the agreed rate pursuant to the instant investment agreement. (2) The Defendant’s investment agreement was made between the Plaintiff and D, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated therein.

Therefore, the instant investment agreement has no effect on the Defendant.

B. Determination 1 is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of expression, and if the contents of a contract are written in writing, which is a disposal document, it is written.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.05.13 2015가단218531

-제주지방법원 2015.03.26 2013가합5783

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2017.02.09 2016가단4675

-창원지방법원 2017.08.17 2016가합55745

-서울동부지방법원 2015.08.28 2015나22139