logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.17 2014가단49168
투자금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a business center investment contract (hereinafter “instant investment contract”) with C (hereinafter “C”) that the Defendant, the representative director, deposited KRW 60 million in C and paid the Plaintiff the operating profit of the said investment amount. On February 26, 2011, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 60 million in C.

B. On June 11, 2012, C drafted a written confirmation on June 30, 2012 that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 30 million out of the said investment amount of KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2012.

C. After June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff received a refund of KRW 30 million out of the above investment amount from C, but did not receive a refund of KRW 30 million, and C actually discontinued due to business deterioration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, first of all, the defendant is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for damages since he used the plaintiff's investment funds to C for private purposes or acquired them by deceit differently from the investment contract of this case.

It is difficult to recognize the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant used or acquired the plaintiff's investment money for private purposes only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Next, the Plaintiff asserts that C’s investment contract was terminated pursuant to Article 6(6) of the Investment Contract, but C was unable to repay KRW 30 million out of the Plaintiff’s investment amount. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the reason alleged by the Plaintiff alone is that the Defendant, not a party to the investment contract of this case, is liable to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff.

arrow