beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 34,144,903 and Defendant B with respect thereto from February 16, 2017, and Defendant C with respect thereto.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 9, 2007, the Plaintiff invested KRW 4,000,000 in D, a multi-level company that was working for Defendant B, as the introduction by Defendant C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).
B. After October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff invested KRW 30,000,000 in the non-party company. On the same day, the Defendants prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence A No. 3; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of October 31, 2007”) with the following contents to the Plaintiff:
The custodian confirms that he/she is in custody for three months from October 31, 2007 to February 1, 2008, the above amount of cash custody amount of KRW 30,000,000. The custodian shall return this custody certificate after the lapse of the due date for return to B and C.
The custodian confirms that the above amount in cash custody of KRW 50,00,000 is in custody for three months from November 5, 2007 to February 6, 2008. The custodian shall return this certificate of custody after the lapse of the due date of return A, B and C.
C. On November 5, 2007, the Plaintiff invested KRW 50,000,000 in the non-party company. On the same day, the Defendants prepared a cash custody certificate (Evidence A No. 1; hereinafter “the cash custody certificate as of November 5, 2007”) with the following contents as the Plaintiff: Provided, That when referring to the cash custody certificate as of October 31, 2007, hereinafter “each cash custody certificate of this case”).
The plaintiff was above B and C.
With respect to each of the investments in this case (hereinafter “each of the investments in this case”), KRW 30,605,097 in total, from November 7, 2007 to February 28, 2008, KRW 2,000,000 from Defendant B, and KRW 13,250,000 in total, from October 4, 201 to October 8, 2015, were returned respectively.
[Grounds for recognition] The defendant C, as stated in each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, and Eul evidence No. 2-2, did not have signed the evidence No. 3. However, even though the plaintiff applied for a written appraisal of the above defendant's signature as stated in Gap evidence No. 3 and this court accepted it two times or more, the above defendant applied for a written appraisal on the appraisal date without justifiable grounds.