beta
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 October 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, a corporation that supplies food waste disposal equipment (hereinafter “non-party company”) to invest money in the non-party company (hereinafter “the instant investment contract”).
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 3 million on October 7, 2011, KRW 200 million on October 17, 201, KRW 700,000 on October 31, 201, KRW 500,000 on October 31, 201, KRW 40 million on November 18, 2017, and KRW 40 million around that time (hereinafter “the instant money”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and Eul Nos. 7 (including additional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant had invested KRW 40 million in the non-party company, deceiving the plaintiff that he would be entitled to the total sales right of the non-party company's business branch of the company, and concluded the investment contract of this case and received the money of this case. Since the plaintiff revoked the investment contract of this case on the grounds of the defendant's deception, the defendant is obligated to return the amount of KRW 40 million with unjust enrichment to the plaintiff and its delay damages.
B. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument of the witness E and the pleading, namely, in order to purchase the company’s total tickets at the time of the conclusion of the instant investment contract, the non-party company should pay deposit of KRW 11 million and the share investments of KRW 40 million to the non-party company; the Plaintiff was aware of the terms and conditions of the purchase of the said total tickets from the Defendant; and the witness E stated that the Defendant did not express to the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would give the total right to purchase if the Defendant paid KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff with the share investments without the said deposit. In light of the statement of No. 6 and the witness E’s testimony alone, if the Defendant invested KRW 40 million in the non-party company.