beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 440,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from November 29, 2018 to January 30, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. On January 2015, the Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendant by the first police officer C.
B. The Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to create profits by using foreign exchange transactions and to make an investment.
The defendant decided to return the investment principal to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 440 million to the defendant from January 9, 2015 to October 22, 2015.
C. On the other hand, the defendant established and operated D, a fund-raising organization, and was punished for violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission.
The plaintiff was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a period of one year and two years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Conducting Fund-Raising Business without Permission as the head of the branch office of D.
[Attachment, the Defendant agreed to return the investment principal to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 440,00,000 to the Defendant as investment deposit, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the investment principal amount of KRW 440,00,000 and delay damages therefrom, as stated in the agreement, in accordance with the agreement, as seen earlier, as the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition / [the grounds for recognition], Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, as seen earlier.
Furthermore, as to the initial date of the damages for delay, the Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant would return the investment profits by paying dividends of 10% per month between 36 months and that the Defendant would pay the damages for delay from the date of the last payment of the investment profits. However, the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the time to return the investment principal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s obligation to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff is a debt without setting the time limit.