beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 45 million with the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 31, 2015 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff invested KRW 45 million in total, around 2010, to Nonparty ASC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that was employed by the Defendant.
B. In relation to the Plaintiff’s investment funds, the Defendant’s document stating that “I will be responsible for KRW 60 million until June 21, 2012” is “the instant agreement.”
(C) The Plaintiff prepared and proposed the principal of the investment money from the non-party company. Ultimately, the Plaintiff was unable to recover the principal of the investment money from the non-party company.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, if the non-party company is unable to repay the investment amount to the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the principal of the investment amount of KRW 45 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from October 31, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
[Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the duplicate of the complaint in this case is served, but the provision on statutory interest rate under the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015; effective Oct. 1, 2015) and Article 2(2) of the Addenda of this case, the part claiming damages for delay exceeding the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the duplicate of the complaint in this case is served, is without merit).
The defendant's decision on the defendant's assertion is merely to prepare the agreement of this case as the plaintiff makes a threat to the defendant while it is responsible for the plaintiff's error that the plaintiff found the defendant and invested in the non-party company by the defendant's solicitation. Therefore, the agreement of this case is null and void by the plaintiff's coercion.