beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff (after the opening of name: D) joined the “E” map in which C (hereinafter “E”) is the subject of guidance, and the instant map is a successful bidder who pays the interest calculated by the ratio of 2% per month during that period when 200,000 won per month is paid in 10 times per month. The instant system is a successful bidder who pays 20,000 won when 10th principal is paid.
B. Meanwhile, C was unable to use its own name and operated a mutual beauty art room in the name of F, etc., and during which C used a bank account, etc. in the name of F.
C Around April 2010 of the defect that the name lending is impossible, around April 2010, the Defendant recommended the Defendant who entered the G Beauty room to register the business under his name. From March 24, 2012, upon obtaining the Defendant’s consent, the registration of the business of the G Beauty room was changed to the Defendant’s name. From May 23, 2013, the Defendant lent and used the Defendant’s new bank and the Han Bank’s account in relation to the cosmetic business, and the said account was also used for the deposit and withdrawal of the accounts related to the instant fraternity.
C. From June 11, 2015 to September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited a total of KRW 9 million in the account under the name of the Defendant to the account in the instant account.
Around January 2014, the Defendant: (a) had C maintain the business registration under the name of the Defendant; (b) had C lend the Defendant’s beauty artist’s license to C to use it for the business of the G Beauty; and (c) around July 2016, C discontinued the cosmetic.
E. Meanwhile, C, while stating that “I will make a large-scale investment in a financial institution and a lending company to investors, including the Plaintiff, in return for a large amount of money (in the case of the Plaintiff, the amount equivalent to KRW 980 million), C, who received a large amount of money (in the case of the Plaintiff, the amount equivalent to KRW 980 million) and went back to Vietnam with H without paying it, and C, on November 9, 2016, C, the special economic act, etc. is aggravated.