beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiff's claims that the court changed in exchange are dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is as follows: ① each part of "Plaintiffs" of the 3rd and 19th and 3th and 19th of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "Plaintiffs and Co-Plaintiffs A"; ② each part of "Plaintiffs A" of the 3rd, 21th, 4th, 2, 4, and 6th and 3rd of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "Co-Plaintiffs A of the court of first instance"; ③ the part "Plaintiff B" of the 3rd and 25th of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the Defendant knew that E was in a situation where it was unable to carry out the instant project and that there was no need to invest in the instant project, the Defendant concluded the instant agreement with the Plaintiff by deceiving the Plaintiff, including proposing to invest in the instant project, and received a total of KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff during the period from March 8, 2005 to March 14, 2005, from the Plaintiff as investment money for the instant project. Accordingly, the Plaintiff revoked the said agreement by delivery of a preparatory document as of June 27, 2017 on the ground that the instant agreement constitutes the Defendant’s expression of intent under the Defendant’s deception, and demanded the Defendant to return the said KRW 80 million to the Defendant on January 205, 200, the Plaintiff concluded the instant agreement with the Defendant on the instant business and concluded the said agreement with the Defendant in accordance with the said agreement.
However, around April 2015, the Plaintiff became aware of the cancellation of the instant investment contract on May 30, 2005 because the representative F of the non-party company was met or the Defendant was not investing in the instant business. The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the said KRW 80 million around that time, thereby withdrawing from the partnership with the Defendant.
In addition, the defendant's objection.