beta
Text
1. Defendant I:
A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 18,211,190 and KRW 18,00,00 among them, the amount of KRW 18,00 shall be from July 29, 2015 to KRW 10,00.
Reasons
1. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion
A. The Plaintiffs and Defendant H are bus drivers who work for J Co., Ltd., and Defendant G are those who work for the said company as the Vice Minister of Ship and Vehicle Management.
B. Defendant I made a false statement to Defendant G and H, as if it would allow Defendant G and H to purchase a certain amount of difference at a half of the market price.
Defendant G and H, under the direction of Defendant I, deceiving the Plaintiffs and received honorariums from Defendant I for the purpose of receiving honorariums from Defendant I, by making false statements as set forth below:
C. Defendant G from the early July 2015 to August 201 of the same year, to the Plaintiffs, and “A well-known person (Defendant I) is engaged in trading export vehicles, and if so, he/she may purchase a vehicle from the exported vehicle and QM5 vehicle from the person who purchased the vehicle at a half price. Furthermore, he/she purchased the vehicle from the person who purchased the vehicle from the person who purchased the vehicle at a half price. If he/she deposits the price, he/she is a good opportunity to purchase the vehicle at a half price of the vehicle at a mountain-dopact-style pact-style pact-dong (U.S.) which is an essential mechanism, and the vehicle may arrive within one month. In particular, the employees of our company made a false statement to the effect that the vehicle price is paid in the future by the person who knowss the part of the options.”
Defendant H admitted the Plaintiffs to the effect that “G Deputy (Defendant G) purchased low-level vehicles at a half-value, sold them immediately in the half-value, and left a lot of difference, and additionally purchased one vehicle at a half-value, and as a result, it would be a big benefit to purchase a vehicle as soon as possible a day by paying the purchase price of the vehicle according to the end of the G Deputy Commissioner,” Defendant H respondeded to the purport that “The purchase of the low-level vehicle at a half-value.”
E. The Plaintiffs determined to purchase vehicles from Defendant I, as they belong to Defendant G and H’s horses, and attached Form I.