beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share the amount of KRW 82.1 million to Plaintiff A, KRW 14 million to Plaintiff B, and each of them on January 24, 2019.
Reasons
1. The plaintiffs' claim for the money obtained by deception against the defendants
A. The Defendants, in collusion with E, acquired KRW 120 million from the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 60,100,000 from June 9, 2016 to June 22, 2016, KRW 60,010,00 from November 29, 2016 to February 25, 2017), KRW 14,00,000 from the Plaintiff ( KRW 10,000,000,000 from January 4, 2017, and KRW 4 million on January 5, 2017) from each of the Defendants, and the Defendants agreed to pay KRW 12,00,000 from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 60,00 from June 9, 2016 to June 22, 2016). In full view of the purport that the Defendants and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 12,00,000 among the Plaintiffs and the Defendant 2.
Therefore, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff KRW 132,100,000 to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 1220,100,000,000,000) less KRW 50,000,000,000,000 for which the Plaintiff was paid on April 24, 2018, and KRW 14,000,000,000,000 for the money acquired by the Plaintiff, and KRW 14,000,000,000,000 for each of them, as sought by the Plaintiffs, from January 24, 2019 to August 23, 2019, the date following the final delivery date of the application for change of the purport of the instant claim and the cause of the claim, to each of them calculated at a rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.
B. Defendant D’s assertion argues that the cash custody certificate (Evidence A 3) of “the content that Defendant D would pay KRW 150 million to April 28, 2017” was prepared by the Plaintiff’s requesting the preparation of the use to show to a third party, and that it is invalid because it is a bad intent. However, even if the statement was a bad intent, it is difficult to view that Plaintiff A, the other party, was aware or could have known, solely on the evidence No. 1, it does not constitute a case where Plaintiff A, the other party, was aware or could have known.