logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.12.22 2016가합963
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff Eul, the land owner of the plaintiff Eul, proposed to the plaintiff Eul to make an investment of KRW 500 million in 50 million in each of the two capitals with the other four investors and to jointly accept the plaintiff Eul, which is the land owner of the plaintiff Eul. On April 21, 2014, the plaintiff Eul believed that 4 other investors will be recruited, and entered into a contract for transfer and takeover of business with the representative director of the farming corporation of this case as to the farming corporation of this case and the plaintiff as the representative transferee of the plaintiff Eul (hereinafter "the transfer contract of this case").

Plaintiff

A deposited down payment of KRW 300 million into the account of the farming corporation of this case on April 29, 2014.

However, the remaining investors were not recruited, and the plaintiff A agreed to take over the farming corporation of this case solely according to the proposal of D that the remaining investors would pay the balance of KRW 800 million and take over the farming corporation of this case independently, and borrowed KRW 800 million from the defendant introduced by D.

On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiffs prepared and executed a promissory note No. 1 billion won certificate to the Defendant, and the Defendant directly paid the loan as the balance of the transfer contract of this case on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiffs withdrawn KRW 98 million from the Plaintiff’s account and delivered it to the Defendant. The Plaintiffs were aware that the Defendant paid KRW 98 million and KRW 740 million owned by himself to the Plaintiff’s farming corporation as the remainder and interest interest interest of the instant transfer contract.

Therefore, the Plaintiff A paid the Defendant the total of KRW 221 million in May 2015, and KRW 220 million by Plaintiff B, respectively, under the pretext of the repayment of the loan.

However, the defendant did not pay approximately KRW 840,000,000 to the side of the farming juristic person of this case, and the check of KRW 700,000 delivered by the defendant to the side of the farming juristic person of this case is personal transaction.

arrow