logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2012.07.19 2011가합121482
환매대금 등
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 671,461,321 among them and KRW 511,295,215 among them, from January 29, 2008, and the remainder of KRW 160,66.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a company that runs investment trading business, investment brokerage business, investment advisory business, discretionary investment business, trust business and incidental business related thereto under Article 6 of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, and A was in charge of PB as the defendant's branch office B.

B. The Plaintiff is an organization related to the Saemaul Movement as prescribed in Article 2 of the Support of the Saemaul Movement Organization Act and appropriated for necessary expenses with contributions and subsidies from the State or a local government or received contributions or donations from individuals, corporations and organizations.

C. From October 2003, the Plaintiff, through A, invested KRW 5,00,000,000 from January 29, 2008 to “The Fund No. 8 (hereinafter “Financial Investment Trust No. 8”) of our CS Orb World Fund No. 8,” and invested KRW 6,000,000 on April 30, 2008 and May 6, 2008, “The Fund No. 6 (hereinafter “No. 6”) of our CS Orb World Asset Investment Trust No. 6 (hereinafter “Financial Investment Trust No. 6 and 8”) totaling the Fund No. 293,985,00,00.”

Each of the funds of this case was invested in ship operation business based on charterage import, etc. of cargo ships, but began to suffer losses due to charterage decline due to the financial crisis in 2008, and was actually liquidated due to the sale of a ship, which was the object of investment security around 2011.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 5 (including each number in the case where there are additional numbers), witness A and C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff primarily sought a redemption price according to the redemption agreement granted to each of the funds of this case, but according to the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the beneficiary of each of the funds of this case is not the time when the beneficiary dies or when a corporation, which is the beneficiary, files an application for bankruptcy, legal management, composition, or dissolution.

arrow