본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.12.21 2016가단41292

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.


1. On January 25, 201, the Defendants drafted and sent to the Plaintiff a letter that the Defendants would pay KRW 67,000,000 to the Plaintiff by February 15, 201 (hereinafter “instant letter of payment”).

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C denies the fact that Defendant C written the instant payment note, but its stamp image portion is recognized, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff extended KRW 67,00,000 to the defendants and received the letter of rejection of the payment of this case. Thus, the defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff KRW 67,00,000 and damages for delay from the day after the due date.

3. In addition to the written rejection of the instant payment, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 67,00,000 to the Defendants, and considering the overall purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 1, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff exempted the Defendants from the obligation under the instant written rejection while revoking the criminal complaint against the Defendants.

① The Defendants are expected to pay interest of 16% per month and guarantee principal when they invest in the Plaintiff, D, E, etc. in the operation of the company called the Plaintiff, D, and E, and they appear to have received an investment from the Plaintiff, etc. ② The Defendants were invested by the Plaintiff in total amount of KRW 127,00,000,000, and returned to the Plaintiff the amount corresponding to the said amount. However, the Defendants are deemed to have promised to prepare and return the written notice of the instant payment for the amount not returned. ③ The Prosecutor G of Busan District Prosecutor’s Office stated that the Defendants, including the Plaintiff, were not accused from the Defendants even in the written non-prosecution decision prepared on July 12, 2011, and submitted the written notice of the revocation of the complaint if they agreed on the principal of the investment with the Defendants. ④ The Defendants submitted the written notice of the revocation of the complaint.