beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant F was actually establishing and operating the I University on February 28, 1991, and the J University on March 4, 2005, and Defendant G was the president from around 2006 to Defendant G, and Defendant H was the president of J University from around 2005 to December 13, 201. Plaintiff A was working as professor of J University from March 1, 2006 to December 13, 201, Plaintiff B from March 1, 2007, Plaintiff C from March 5, 2005, and Plaintiff D from March 1, 2005 to March 1, 2005, and from March 1, 2007 to March 1, 2007.
B. (1) Around June 2006, Defendant F instructed Defendant G and Defendant H to obtain a living stabilization fund from the Korea Teachers Pension Corporation under the name of professors belonging thereto and to use it as operating expenses of the school.
(2) Accordingly, Defendant G and Defendant H called “F Chairman’s instructions. To receive a loan for the stabilization of livelihood from the Korea Teachers’ Pension & Staff and deliver it to the Plaintiffs, it would make a reimbursement in lieu of it at school.” Accordingly, Plaintiff A received a loan from the Korea Teachers’ Pension Foundation on June 11, 2007; Plaintiff B received a loan of KRW 30,000,000 from Defendant G’s account on the same day; Plaintiff B received a loan of KRW 37,000,000 on October 17, 2006; Plaintiff C received a loan of KRW 30,000,000 on the same day; Plaintiff C received a loan of KRW 30,000 on the same day; Plaintiff D received a loan of KRW 23,50,000 on the same day; Plaintiff D received a loan of KRW 30,000 on November 3, 206; and deposited it into Defendant H account on the same day as Defendant G’s account on the same day.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 6, 11 through 15 (Ga number omitted), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on a claim for damages due to a tort
A. The plaintiffs' assertion that the Defendants made a loan under the names of the plaintiffs by threatening the plaintiffs, and thereby, did not reach the extent of the loan, or of the settlement of novels.