Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 1, 2014 to September 8, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendant that, if the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million in connection with the mobile phone business, the Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s share of 10%, paid 10% of net profit, and pay at least three million won per month, irrespective of whether to make profits (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”).
B. After the conclusion of the instant investment agreement, the Defendant began to run a mobile phone business from April 2012, and paid KRW 3 million monthly payment agreement to the Plaintiff from May 31, 2012, and paid the monthly payment agreement amount to KRW 1.5 million from November 2012, the Defendant changed the monthly payment agreement amount to KRW 1.5 million, and the said business was suspended on July 2013.
C. On August 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the investment amount, and thereafter, received a total of KRW 30 million from the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading
2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15 percent as prescribed by the Civil Act from February 1, 2014, which is the delivery date of a copy of the claim and ground for alteration, of the claim and ground of the instant investment agreement from February 1, 2014 to September 8, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the application for alteration of the claim and ground of the instant investment agreement, to the Plaintiff, for the sum of KRW 70,000,000 and KRW 3,00,000,000,000 not paid out of the monthly payment agreement under the said investment agreement.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the amount of unclaimed investment is KRW 69 million and the amount of unpaid investment KRW 3 million shall not exist, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.
3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.