beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 216,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from May 31, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
A. The Defendants are married and married, and Defendant C is between the Plaintiff’s spouse D and high school-friendly relationship, and the Defendants have brought a conflict with the Plaintiff and D from August 2015.
B. On May 2016, Defendant B recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment that “I would receive interest higher than the bank interest every month if the Plaintiff made an investment,” and received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on May 18, 2016 from the Plaintiff to the E bank account in the name of Defendant C, and returned the Plaintiff on June 20, 2016 plus the interest of KRW 20 million plus the interest of KRW 20 million.
(Afterwards, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million on June 30, 2016, and KRW 15 million on July 11, 2016, respectively, and returned KRW 10 million on July 22, 2016 and KRW 1575 million on July 21, 2016, respectively).
Defendant B, around June 21, 2016, recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment that “it may allow the Plaintiff to enjoy a profit higher than the bank interest if it invests the funds,” and received from the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 20 million on June 21, 2016, KRW 50 million on July 20, 2016, KRW 25 million on July 25, 2016, KRW 20 million on September 6, 2016, KRW 40 million on September 29, 2016, KRW 30 million on September 24, 2016, KRW 30 million on October 24, 2016, and KRW 216 million on December 15, 2016, and not yet returned.
[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information, which is acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above as follows. In other words, defendant B merely asserts that the plaintiff is unable to pay the money because it invested in a bond business with money from the plaintiff and failed to pay the money, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, defendant B seems to have voluntarily consumed the money received from the plaintiff under the name of the transportation business's business's business's own business's own business's own business's own business's business. In addition, even if the plaintiff received money from the plaintiff, the defendant B did not have any intent or ability to return the investment principal or investment return.