beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 96,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from June 14, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 2004, the Plaintiff and E, from Defendant C and D (which had been employed as an employee in the real estate office operated by two Defendant B), sought a proposal from Defendant C and D (which would sell KRW 50,000,000 per 3.3m2,00,000 per 3m2,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendants a total of KRW 93 million ( KRW 40 million on June 3, 2004, KRW 53 million on June 14, 2004) with the introduction cost and partial purchase cost of the instant forest as well as KRW 20 million on June 14, 2004. Of the aforementioned KRW 93 million, the Plaintiff was prepared by E.
C. After selling the instant forest land, Defendant B paid KRW 30 million to E with respect to the investment in the instant forest land.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, one bank's submission order, response to one bank's financial transaction information, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. Although the Defendants sold the instant forest land at KRW 50,00,000 per 3.3 square meters, the Defendants attempted not to give profit to KRW 20,000 per 3.3 square meters, which was promised to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, Defendant B agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 126 million in total of KRW 33 million of the investment principal, when the Plaintiff resisted the instant forest land as the fact that the Defendants filed a complaint.
However, since Defendant B paid only KRW 30 million out of the above agreed amount to E that invested together with the Plaintiff, Defendant B should pay the remainder of the agreed amount to the Plaintiff and the delay damages.
(b).
Judgment
In full view of the statements Nos. 1 and 3-6 evidence and witness H’s testimony, the Plaintiff filed complaints regarding the distribution of investment profits of the forest of this case and reselled the forest of this case.