logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.04 2019가합559830
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly:

A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 250,000,000 and its amount, Defendant E from September 2, 2016.

Reasons

1. As to the claim against Defendant E

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession based on the basis of recognition (Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. As to the claim against Defendant F

A. Basic facts 1) Defendant E’s status as the Defendants is the Gangnam-gu Seoul G Building, H and J church located in H and I (hereinafter “instant church”).

2) The term “instant research institute” refers to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

Defendant E is the representative of Defendant E, and Defendant E is the legal spouse of Defendant E. (2) Defendant E is the fact that Defendant E is the instant church and the instant research institute, etc., but Defendant E did not invest in the stocks or make high profits through the NN, and did not intend to list the venture business that has invested in or invested in the venture business, so as to make a false statement to the new members of the church as if they would raise high profits through stock investment or to invest in the venture business that is highly likely to increase listing and stock price. When investing, Defendant E received money from the new members of the church by paying interest from 1% to 4% per month and received money from the existing funds from the new members of the church or the persons who have been introduced from them. (B) Defendant E received money from the new members of the church in the instant church on August 4, 2009 by guaranteeing that “I will make a false investment at the maturity of 10% by raising high profits through NNN’s stock investment at the time of maturity of 40% per year.”

However, in fact, Defendant E did not have the ability to guarantee high-income from stock investment, and even if receiving N money, it was thought that it would return to other investors' profits.

arrow