logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.03 2018가단5033162
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion G, etc. made a company H and purchased this extraction machine, entrusted management, and received investments from many investors under the pretext that the mining machine sales allowances and the mining machine learning allowances should be paid with the profits derived from the virtual currency extracted from the extraction machine. The defendant is obligated to compensate each of the above plaintiffs for damages, since the plaintiff acquired 36,00,000 won from the plaintiff's 10th unit of the extraction machine, and 11,40,000 won from the plaintiff's B, and 72,00,000,000 won from the plaintiff's 20th unit of the extraction machine, and 3,630,000,000 won from the plaintiff's D, and 41,80,000 won from the plaintiff's E, which are only 7,000 won from the plaintiff's 10th unit of the extraction machine.

2. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 11 (including the paper numbers), the defendant recommended the purchase of the extraction machine to the effect that "the defendant is a member of the H Steering Committee, the fiveoneoneone point in H, the fiveoneone point in his own purchase of 30 extraction equipment, and the 2,000 extraction equipment purchased by subordinate investors shall be at least two thousand persons, and the lower part shall be at least fouroneone day off, and the lower part shall be at least two persons, and the lower part shall meet certain conditions; the defendant recommended the investors to purchase the extraction machine to the effect that "if the defendant purchased the ion extraction equipment and entrusted the purchase of ion, 40% of the extraction amount to the company and the remainder 60% of the extraction amount to the buyer, the defendant shall be paid to the buyer." However, even if the above facts were to be paid as allowances, the above recognition alone is insufficient to conclude that the defendant, even if the defendant did not know the Ha's purchase of the extraction machine under the name of investment.

arrow