(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단10221

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) 광주지방법원 2015.12.22 2015가단10221

투자반환금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Examining the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim No. 1, the Plaintiff shall invest KRW 50 million between the Defendant and the Defendant on November 19, 2012, but the Defendant agreed to return the above investment amount to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million as part of the investment amount pursuant to the above agreement on the same day to the Defendant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to refund the amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay to the plaintiff according to the above agreement on the return of the investment amount, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. First, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s investment in KRW 30 million is not obligated to return the Plaintiff’s investment in the Defendant only when the business profit is generated and that the principal is lost. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s investment in June 30, 2013, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s investment in the process of return only when the profits accrue. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is rejected.

B. Next, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff paid the above money as investment money for the operation of the gambling site by the defendant, it does not have any obligation to return it as illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Code.

If the statement No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 and the witness C’s testimony show the overall purport of the pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having invested KRW 30 million with the business fund for operating the Internet gambling site after hearing the business explanation from the defendant and hearing the business explanation of the Internet gambling site. Therefore, the above KRW 30 million which the plaintiff invested in the defendant can not be claimed to the defendant pursuant to Article 746 of the Civil Act as an illegal cause. The defendant’s defense is justified.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

참조조문

-민법 제746조

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.01.07 2014가단529262

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.11 2016가단11859

-대전고등법원 2018.10.31 2017나13616

-광주지방법원 2015.10.28 2015나6841

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.19 2016가단206868