logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.09.28 2014가합111793
손해배상(기)
Text

1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 2 million to Plaintiff A, and for this, KRW 5% per annum from January 22, 2015 to September 28, 2016; and (b) thereafter.

Reasons

As to the allegations of the plaintiffs, the defendants C, D, and E's claims against the defendants of the plaintiff Gap and the defendant C, and D, the defendant C, D, and E proposed that they will guarantee the investment amount and make profits by operating the online private entertainment room, and they will not make any intent or ability to make profits. The plaintiff A transferred KRW 50 million to the defendant F, the main station for the operation of the online private entertainment room on April 16, 2013.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly obligated to pay the plaintiff A the damages amounting to KRW 50 million and the damages for delay.

Defendant C’s assertion stated that Defendant C had previously heard from Defendant F and could be seen as an online private entertainment room. However, there was no agreement to return the principal of the investment, and only the Plaintiff determined Defendant F to make an investment.

Therefore, Defendant C does not have a duty to compensate the Plaintiff A for damages.

Defendant D’s assertion explained to Plaintiff A that investing in the online private entertainment room is illegal and at the risk of principal loss, and Plaintiff A knew this and sent KRW 50 million to Defendant F.

Plaintiff

A was engaged in online private gambling in which the above 50 million won was KRW 50 million.

Therefore, Defendant D has no obligation to compensate the Plaintiff A for damages.

Judgment

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff A alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant C, D, and E deceptions the plaintiff A to transfer KRW 50 million to the defendant F on April 16, 2013, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiff A based on this premise is without merit.

Plaintiff

As to the claim against the defendant A, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant C had a good commercial store in both sides, and when operating a coffee shop, it is possible to pay a lot of profits.

arrow