logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단236869
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the cause of the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) On March 14, 2013, the network of Pakistan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “frequency”) concluded an investment contract with the Defendant to invest KRW 100 million in the Defendant’s game business and distribute profits therefrom. The network of Pakistan wired the sum of KRW 60 million in the bank account in the name of “B”, and ② the Defendant violated the investment contract due to the failure to complete development by the agreed deadline. On June 4, 2013, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff by July 1, 2013.

③ The Plaintiff transferred the right to pay penalty and the right to return the investment amount to the Defendant on the strike network from the strike network to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the transfer. As such, the Defendant, as part of the acquisition amount, shall claim for the payment of KRW 20,001,00 and the damages for delay.

B. Even if the other party to the investment contract dated March 14, 2013 and the agreement on the return of investment proceeds around June 4, 2013 of the wave network are acknowledged to be C rather than the Defendant, the Defendant and C are liable to repay the amount of investment and the liability for the payment of penalty to the Plaintiff in accordance with Articles 712 and 713 of the Civil Act, since the Defendant and C concluded a business agreement for the purpose of the game development project and received the investment proceeds by concluding the said investment agreement with the strike network for the purpose of raising the business funds while operating the business.

2. Determination:

(a) The parties to the investment contract and the agreement on the payment of penalty for investment penalty with respect to the return responsibility to the parties to the investment contract and the agreement on the payment of penalty for investment penalty are insufficient to provide health for the accused and to provide evidence to this point, and rather, the evidence No. 2 is written.

arrow