logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.06.28 2017나3435
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendants to develop and supply “D” program, which provides that the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 40 million to the Defendants, and that the Defendants shall recommend the Plaintiff for the items of stocks, such as stocks and the theme stocks, etc. of the Plaintiff (i.e., evidence No. 2, program supply agreement, and program supply agreement; hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to Defendant B, and paid KRW 40 million in total by paying a check of KRW 20 million at par value on November 12, 2014 (=20 million).

C. Article 9(1) of the instant arrangement provides that “The Defendant shall fulfill the obligation to develop a program and register additional services, and shall return KRW 40 million, which he/she received in the name of the program cost,” Article 3(2) provides that “When the program is not developed and supplied during the time determined, the Defendants shall return the amount of KRW 40 million that he/she received to the Plaintiff when the program is not implemented,” and Article 6 provides that “the program development shall be based on one month. However, the program development shall be based on 【 15 days per month.”

Around October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff stated that “The Defendants, like the content of the instant agreement, received 40 million won as the down payment, as the contract deposit,” and that “in the event of violation of the instant agreement, 40 million won as the down payment shall be repaid.”

E. On October 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendants to the effect that “the Defendant received a total of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff as the development cost of the program called D,” and on October 28, 2015, the investigative agency filed a non-prosecution decision with respect to the Defendants on the instant case (hereinafter “related criminal case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1-1, 3.

arrow