logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.05.29 2017가합59306
투자금 반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 970,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the omission of the former spouse under the law of the defendant.

B. (1) From June 3, 2015 to April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff invested KRW 1,180,000 in total to the Defendant. (2) The Defendant prepared and issued to the Plaintiff a loan certificate stating that “I have borrowed KRW 1,200,000 in cash to the Plaintiff and will be repaid during the first half of 2017.”

C. On March 19, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a criminal charge against the Defendant on the charge of fraud. On March 12, 2018, the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office rendered a non-prosecution disposition against the Defendant on the ground that “the Plaintiff did not file a lawful complaint within the lawful period of accusation with relatives living together with the Defendant.”

On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant and the “Defendant” to transfer KRW 230,000,000 to the Plaintiff, which became final and conclusive by compulsory conciliation in Incheon District Court Decision 2017Da212186, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 230,00,000 from C.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-6's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. On September 29, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in violation of the agreement even though he/she transferred KRW 230,000,00,00, which was decided by compulsory mediation, to the Plaintiff on September 29, 2017, Incheon District Court 2017DaDa212186 of the Defendant’s Incheon District Court, to the Plaintiff, and agreed not to institute a civil lawsuit later, but the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit in violation of the agreement. However, the statement of the evidence No. 4 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant’s allegation existed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the transfer of the claim was made at the time of the agreement (the transfer of the claim is a partial repayment of the investment amount, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder

3. According to the facts established prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the defendant shall have no special circumstance according to the return agreement at the time of the preparation of the above loan certificate.

arrow