beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 70,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 19, 2013 to January 11, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B runs the construction business under the trade name of D, and Defendant C is the Defendant B’s punishment.
B. On January 17, 2013, in order to resume the construction of the five-story loan (hereinafter “instant construction”), which was interrupted in the Gyeongjin-gun E, Chungcheongnam-do, Defendant C, even if he received an investment from the Plaintiff introduced through G, he returned the investment deposit and the proceeds therefrom, or transferred the new one household of the apartment house to the Plaintiff, even though he did not have the intent or ability to transfer the said investment deposit and the proceeds therefrom, he/she returned KRW 150 million if he/she invested KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, and if not, he/she would transfer the new one household of the apartment house to the Plaintiff at the request of Defendant C on the 19th day of the same month.
[Ground of Recognition] A’s non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 6, Gap’s evidence 2, 3, Gap’s evidence 6-4, Gap’s evidence 8-5, Gap’s evidence 10-2, Gap’s evidence 11-2, Eul’s evidence 12-2, Eul’s evidence 12-2, Eul’s witness’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff's primary assertion is that, as the defendants jointly deceptioned the plaintiff and acquired 100 million won as investment proceeds, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay 100 million won and its delay damages to the plaintiff.
Preliminaryly, the Defendants agreed to refund KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 100 million and its delay damages.
B. According to the Civil Act, a joint tort under the Civil Act, which created a claim for damages, is established when several acts objectively related to each other cause damage to another. It does not require not only a public contest among the actors, but also a common or common perception among the doctors.
In addition, such a common act is jointly committed or aided and abetting a tort itself.