logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.08.17 2016가합55745
투자금반환 청구
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 650,531,350 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 14, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

2. Ascertainment that the Plaintiff’s investment amount shall be KRW 50 million and that the full amount of the investment amount shall be deposited.

3. In the event that any of the following events occurs, this Investment Agreement is terminated and the full amount of the investment is immediately refunded to the Plaintiff. 2) In the event that any of the following events occurs, the authorization of the development project is not acquired from the competent authorities within the duration of the proceeding.

6. The duration of this development project will be for one year from July 21, 2014.

The plaintiff from July 21, 2014 to the same year

8. On August 19, 2019, when the Defendant transferred the aggregate extraction and development project (hereinafter “instant project”) that had been in progress, the Defendant invested KRW 500 million in the said project, and entered into an investment agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”) on August 20, 2014. The content of the instant investment agreement is as follows.

B. The Plaintiff’s request from the Defendant for the same year from March 4, 2015

6. up to 10.0.00. A total of KRW 150,531,350 has been additionally paid in nine occasions.

C. As the Defendant failed to obtain the authorization and permission of the instant project, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant investment agreement on December 7, 2016, and claimed the return of the investment amount.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 through 4, and Determination of Grounds for Claim as a whole of the pleadings

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant that the Plaintiff terminated the instant investment agreement and claimed the return of the investment amount on the ground that the Defendant did not obtain permission for the development project in accordance with the instant investment agreement. As such, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return the investment amount, since it did not obtain permission for the development project without any

B. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, the Defendant granted permission for the instant project from the competent authority until July 20, 2015, which is the completion date of the instant project as stipulated in the instant investment agreement.

arrow