beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 250,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from February 21, 2014 to July 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) made an investment in D Company A (hereinafter “D Company”)’s aggregate extraction business (hereinafter “the instant aggregate extraction business”), which was permitted to extract aggregate by Lekie also, and prepared a memorandum of investment that Defendant B, the representative director of D Company and the proposal for investment, should have 25% of the D Company’s shares, and the remainder of 75% of the investment investors, respectively.
(hereinafter “Preparation of the MOU”). B.
While Defendant B sent a container to Kamera for the instant aggregate extraction business, but did not find any container that arrives at the site due to the lack of funds, the Plaintiff decided to invest in the said aggregate extraction business upon E’s recommendation, and deposited KRW 2.5 million into the Defendant C’s account, the representative director of Defendant B, on February 21, 2014.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant investment agreement”). C.
On the other hand, the shares of D companies have 30% of E in its articles of incorporation and 70% of local F. E was planned to receive shares owned by F and reduce them to Defendant B, but F was refused to do so, and there was a dispute between E and F.
The Lekie also revoked the permission to extract aggregate on the ground that the business was not run entirely for one year after the permission to extract aggregate was granted to D companies at the request of F on June 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 9, 19 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion;
A. On the premise that the Plaintiff invested in Defendant B’s share of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s investment because the Defendants failed to perform the instant aggregate extraction business while receiving the Plaintiff’s money and thus revoked the permission. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and severally return the investment money to the Plaintiff and compensate for damages caused by the Defendants’ failure to perform their contractual obligations.