beta
Text
1. Defendant I shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs KRW 100,000,000 per annum from December 25, 2013 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant Han Investment Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is a company established for the purpose of securities and financing business necessary for securities investment. Defendant I served as a contracting deputy head at the J branch of Defendant Company from May 18, 2009 to August 9, 2013, and was in charge of investment consultation, solicitation and management of financial investment instruments, etc.
B. From January 2008 to July 2013, Defendant I offered to investors, including the Plaintiffs “an individual or corporation with whom money is urgently needed, to receive a discount on corporate bonds and government bonds with a maturity of less than the maturity on its own bond account. By purchase of such bonds, Defendant I suspended the relevant bond account from the maturity of the maturity, and there was “medium-to-be redemption bonds” products that receive the face value and interest of the bonds and distribute them to investors. In addition, Defendant I recommended to make an investment to the effect that it would bring profits more than 4% per month.
C. However, the above-mentioned redemption claim was not treated in the Defendant Company, but did not actually exist. Defendant I invested in stocks and futures options in order to improve performance from January 2008, but was deemed to have suffered losses, and it was false for Defendant I to receive investment funds from many investors and make investments in futures options, etc. or to redeem the investment principal and earnings to other investors.
[Based on recognition] The facts that the plaintiff and the defendant I have no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant company, Gap evidence No. 14-18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 52, 53, 59, and 61, witness K's testimony, plaintiff D and defendant I's personal examination results, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of the whole arguments.
2. The Defendant I may bring high profits to Defendant I’s claim against Defendant I when it invests in the goods with the redemption bonds even though it does not actually exist.