logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.10.14 2016가단6278
투자금반환
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an investment contract with the Defendant to make an investment of KRW 100,000,000 with the Defendant, and agreed that the repayment of the said investment principal may be demanded after 12 months from the date of the contract. The Plaintiff, on December 31, 2014, remitted KRW 100,000 to the Defendant (the account of the representative director C) on December 31, 2014, may be recognized by taking into account no dispute between the parties, or all the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a loan (in light of the fact that the contract was written as an investment bond, but the repayment of principal is guaranteed) KRW 100,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 23, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. As to the defendant's assertion, the plaintiff, as the representative of D Co., Ltd., supplied goods to the defendant together with E having the defendant's substantial right to operate, the plaintiff forged books and received a total of 43,514,530 won from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is jointly or separately liable with D Co., Ltd. for damages equivalent to the above amount, and the defendant has a defense that offsets the damages claim against the defendant. However, it is insufficient to find the fact that the defendant has the right to claim damages against the defendant merely by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, the defendant's defense is without merit

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow