(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나41488

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나41488

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The primary claim: 1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from a tort, the Defendant did not have the intent or ability to invest KRW 120 million in the establishment of the instant healthcare agreement, and the Defendant made a false statement that the Plaintiff would invest KRW 20 million in the Plaintiff and distribute 20% out of the proceeds to the Plaintiff even though the Plaintiff did not think that the Plaintiff would distribute 120 million out of the proceeds from the operation of the instant healthcare agreement. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the claim for damages due to a tort. 2) Therefore, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant was deceiving the Plaintiff as alleged in the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

B. First Preliminary Claim: Claim 1 based on the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of investment amount due to the termination of the partnership relationship; the Plaintiff, after the establishment of the instant healthcare center, notified the Defendant that the partnership relationship with the Defendant cannot continue on August 5, 2016. Accordingly, the original and the Defendant’s partnership relationship terminated, and the Defendant, at the time, intended to return the entire amount invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement for the return of investment amount”).

(2) Therefore, according to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount stated in the purport of the claim in accordance with the instant agreement on the return of the investment amount. Therefore, according to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the Defendant at the time obtained a business loan from the Plaintiff or paid a certain amount each month according to the sales status of

or invested by the Plaintiff after being loaned.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.01.09 2016가단357478

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.05.01 2017가합404609

-부산지방법원 2021.04.14 2020나49836

-청주지방법원 2021.04.01 2020나10726

-인천지방법원 2016.09.29 2016가단4074