logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.01 2015가단170164
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants, E and F, G, and Defendant D’s friendly women, etc., including three infinites, etc. (hereinafter “Defendants, etc.”) conspired to obtain money from the Plaintiff or to obtain money from the Plaintiff.

On September 2, 2012, the Defendant, etc.: (a) inducedd the Plaintiff as 301, Seocho-gu Seoul H building 301, and (b) allowed the Plaintiff to take food by mixing with infinite drugs; and (c) caused the Plaintiff to be placed in a state of mental disorder; (d) the Plaintiff forced the Defendant, etc. to gamble in a state of mental disorder, and borrowed unfinitely money from the Defendant, etc.,

From the following day, the Defendant et al. forced and threatened the Plaintiff to pay the above amount by forcing the Plaintiff to pay the amount of KRW 125,000,000,000, which is promptly repaid to the gambling fund, and the Plaintiff incurred damages equivalent to the above amount by remitting the amount of KRW 100,000 to the financial account in the name of the first name designated by the Defendant et al. on October 8, 2012 while the freedom of decision-making was restricted due to coercion and intimidation by the Defendant et al.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly liable to pay 125,000,000 won to the plaintiff as damages as joint tort.

2. In a civil suit, the burden of proof of facts is not a natural scientific proof that is not a suspicion, but a high probability of proving that there was a fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, and the degree of proof is required to be sufficient to avoid suspicion if it is ordinary.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da6755 Decided October 28, 2010). According to the respective statements in Evidence A Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff is an intra-company director of K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”), and the Plaintiff is named in the name of K’s financial account on October 8, 2012.

arrow