logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.30 2017가단5140841
투자금반환
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 116,20,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 28, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. The Defendant established D Co., Ltd. and E Co., Ltd. around February 2008 and around October 2014, and established an overseas corporation from around September 2010 to carry out business activities, such as FX M&D brokerage business, U.S. Shep gas investment business, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “FX M&C business, etc.”). B.

The Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendant to invest KRW 10,00,000 on September 20, 2015, and KRW 80,000,000 on October 7, 2015, and KRW 10,000 on October 8, 2015, and KRW 20,000,000 on October 21, 2015, and KRW 15,000,000 on December 29, 2015 (hereinafter “each of the instant investment agreements”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 145,00,000 on each of the instant investments to the Defendant on each of the investment dates.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 3 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, even if it received the investment money from the Plaintiff under the name of the FX EM business, etc., used it for its original purpose, or committed fraud by deceiving the investment money as if it would pay the principal and interest with the business profit, although there was no intent and ability to repay the principal and interest with the business profit.

Therefore, the plaintiff seek the payment of damages equivalent to the amount of each tort caused by fraud.

B) Since each of the instant investment agreements was made by fraud, the Plaintiff’s revocation of each of the instant investment agreements concluded with the Defendant with the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, and sought the return of unjust enrichment therefrom against the Defendant. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant had concluded each of the instant investment agreements under his own judgment, with full explanation about the FX M&C business and knowledge that there is possibility of loss of principal.

arrow