beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,760,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 26, 2016 to June 1, 2020.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in the Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff listens to the statement that he/she would make high profits by investing in the shares from the Defendant, and delivers a total of KRW 63 million to the Defendant from June 25, 2010 to October 26, 2016, and the Defendant may recognize the fact that he/she was sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months for a crime of deceiving a number of victims, including the Plaintiff, and finally became final and conclusive (Seoul High Court 2019No385) by being sentenced to imprisonment of three years and six months (Seoul High Court 2019No385).
B. If so, the defendant shall be deemed to have deceiving the plaintiff and defrauded the 63 million won, and the defendant shall be obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 4,4760,000 won, which is the remaining 4,760,000 won after deducting the 18,2440,000 won that the plaintiff was paid, and 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from October 26, 2016 to June 1, 2020, which is the date of service of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that "the plaintiff only promised to gain profits from more than the plaintiff and it does not deceiving him to gain profits from them." However, even if a civil trial is not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial, the fact that the court found the defendant guilty of the same facts is a flexible evidence, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the facts against the defendant's objection are not acceptable unless there are special circumstances where it is acknowledged that it is difficult to adopt a decision of facts in the criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da24276, Sept. 30, 199; 2007Da69148, Feb. 14, 2008; 2007Da69148, 69155, Feb. 14, 2008). Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.
3. Conclusion