(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2021.01.14 2020가단30091

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2021.01.14 2020가단30091

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is asserting that the following purport is identical to the purport of the claim.

The defendant is a person who is a de facto representative of the non-party C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party corporation") and a person who is a sibling.

In 2010, the defendant is the plaintiff at around 2010 that "D, one who is his relative, is the person in charge of the game strike business of the non-party company.

The non-party company completed the development and approval work of the game called "E", and if the plaintiff makes an investment of KRW 100 million, it will guarantee the principal and pay 0.5% of the sales amount as investment profits.

“A proposal was made, and the Plaintiff, which accepted the said proposal, remitted KRW 100 million to the account in the name of the non-party company on February 17, 2010 (hereinafter “the first remittance”).

In addition, the defendant around March 2010 completed the development and approval work of the "F" game by the non-party company to the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff makes an additional investment of KRW 100 million, he/she will guarantee the principal and pay 0.25% of the sales amount as the investment profit.

Investment attraction to F is the Defendant’s disposal of investment shares related to the game in question to the Plaintiff.

“Additional proposal” was made, and the Plaintiff accepted the said proposal was additionally remitted KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s personal account on March 25, 2010 (hereinafter “the second remittance”).

However, unlike the Defendant’s promise, the above “E” and “F” games did not run out after the completion of development and approval work, and the Defendant, even though he was well aware of such fact, conspired with Nonparty D, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought damages against the Defendant for KRW 100 million (the amount equivalent to the second remittance of this case) and for delay in the said amount.

2. Determination as to the claim

A. Judgment on the cause of the claim 1) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of fraud by deception (1).

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2021.01.14 2020가단30091

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.13 2016고단3349

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가단233181

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.02.13 2012가합62597

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.12.19 2017가단57453