(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가합103871

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가합103871

투자금 반환

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as KRW 100,000,000 on the Plaintiff and as a result, February 14, 2012 to August 9, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 26, 2010, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) prepared the following agreements with the Plaintiff and received KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff.

D and Defendant C’s inside director of the Defendant Company affixed their seals on the above agreement as “joint guarantor”.

The Agreement on Investment.

1. The Plaintiff shall invest KRW 300 million in the Defendant Company.

2. The plaintiff shall take over 30% of the shares of the defendant company for the purpose of producing and constructing carbon packing materials.

3. The extension and disposition of shares shall be dealt with under the agreement of the D, Defendant C, and the third person.

4. Upon the Plaintiff’s request, D and Defendant C shall be liable for and returned when the amount of 300 million won is recovered.

5. The principal amount of KRW 300 million and the company’s stocks shall be paid at 10% when the investment is recovered;

B. On November 28, 2011, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant Company a certificate of content that “The principal was used for only three hundred million won, and the principal was not returned, and the interest was not paid from September 201. By December 9, 2011, the Plaintiff returned KRW 300 million until December 9, 201, and changed the amount exceeding 10% of the Defendant Company’s equity as agreed.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1, 4, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendants, 1, who are obligated to return the investment amount, have recognized the authenticity of the investment agreement, asserts that D is merely a loan of KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff to use it for personal purposes.

In full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, and 18, the fact that D mainly used KRW 300 million paid by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff stated in the investigative agency to the effect that “The Plaintiff lent KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

According to this, D is actually a personal purpose.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.12.14 2018고단1501

-서울동부지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노1930

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2015.11.11 2015고단574

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.10.23 2020고단530

-광주지방법원 2018.07.04 2018고단729