beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 21,578,000 won and each year from June 29, 2016 to September 13, 2018.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendants, who had been operating the Dgras, deceiving the Plaintiff and had the Plaintiff invest KRW 50 million, but the former investors did not notify the Plaintiff of the part that was deducted, did not disclose the details of the expenditure, etc., and did not comply with the promise, such as not paying KRW 650,000 per month agreed upon if they did not make profits. The Defendants are obligated to return the investment amount by tort (Fraud). (ii) Even if the Defendants do not fall under fraud, they did not make any payment of the amount that was made on April 7, 2016 and did not disclose the details of the settlement without disclosing the details of the settlement. Therefore, they are obligated to return the investment amount due to cancellation of the contract by deception or cancellation of the contract due to nonperformance.
3) As of June 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intention to withdraw from the partnership relationship with content certification. The Defendants were obligated to pay the difference of KRW 2,784,00 [2,784,00 due to excess appropriation [3,080,000 (2,50,000 of the rent used as the basis for the settlement of accounts by the Defendant) x 12 months (from January 1, 2016 to January 25, 2017), 40% of the Plaintiff’s share x 5,850,00 [650,000 monthly profit agreement x 9,000 won x 1, 200,000 won (from May 1, 2016 to 2017, x 3000,000,000 won and 400,000,0000 won and 400,00 others) of the transfer proceeds].
B. The Defendants did not deceiving the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff had already been aware of the removal of the Subdivision’s office in advance. The Plaintiff completed the settlement of the entire part of the Subdivision’s office under the Plaintiff’s responsibility and delivered the details of the settlement to the Plaintiff, and faithfully performed the same business relationship. On May 4, 2016, the Defendants left the Subdivision’s office without permission and carried out the same business relationship.