logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.03.14 2017가합106617
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who sells high art works in the name of “C (former trade name: D)”.

Around June 2007, the defendant invested 350,000,000 won by the defendant and E, and entered into a partnership agreement with the defendant and E to purchase and sell the high-priced self-government in Japan with the said money and to reflect the profit therefrom.

B. At that time, E explained the contents of the business with the Defendant to F (Plaintiff’s Chok) and suggested to identify investors, and F recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment.

C. The Plaintiff accepted this and paid KRW 350 million to G (Defendant’s wife) at the Defendant’s workplace through F on July 18, 2007.

Although Defendant and E intended to purchase their own as the said money in Japan, they did not comply with the price terms and conditions, they renounced their purchase.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, witness F, and testimony of each part of E, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff, who asserted direct investment against the Defendant, invested KRW 350 million to the Defendant for his own purchase, but the Defendant did not purchase the said investment amount. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the said investment amount to the Plaintiff. 2) Even if it is not so alleged, even if it is not so alleged, the Defendant indicated to E the power of representation regarding the attraction of investment amount from the Plaintiff, or ratified the act of unauthorized representation of E, so the Defendant is liable to return the said investment amount in accordance with Article 125 or 130 of the Civil Act.

3. The Defendant asserted joint and several liability for partnership debts was in a partnership relationship with E, and E was invested in the amount of KRW 350 million from the Plaintiff, and thus, the obligation to return the above investment amount constitutes partnership debts.

In addition, the above union obligations are borne by the act of commercial activity for all the union members, and it is in accordance with Article 57 (1) of the Commercial Act.

arrow