beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Plaintiff’s assertion
Defendant B received KRW 83 million from the Plaintiff as investment money for futures options, etc., and subsequently, unlike the initial promise, acquired the said money by personally using the said money instead of using it as investment money, and Defendant C was the spouse of Defendant B, who was involved in the act of defraudation.
Therefore, the defendants should jointly and severally refund to the plaintiff the above fraud amount of KRW 83 million and damages for delay.
The Plaintiff stated the cause of the claim as the return of investment money. However, in light of the overall purport of the claim, the Defendants, despite the absence of an intent to invest in futures options, etc., received a delivery of KRW 83 million by deceiving the Plaintiff. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the cause of the claim as the claim for damages caused by tort.
Judgment
According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff issued to Defendant B a cashier’s check at the face value of 30 million won on May 26, 2012, and remitted KRW 30 million on June 11, 2012, and KRW 23 million on June 14, 2012 to the above Defendant’s account.
Furthermore, even if examining the overall contents of text messages exchanged between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants received the said money under the pretext of investment, that the Defendants were deceiving the use of the said money (investment) from the Defendants, and that there was causation between the Plaintiff’s mistake and damage.
Furthermore, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument as to No. 1, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against Defendant B on the same factual basis as the above assertion, and at the time, the investigation agency at the time “the investigation agency at the time” did not have any interest or loss in the investment.