beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 128,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 29, 2012 to August 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1, evidence 2-1 through 7, evidence 3-1 through 4, evidence 8-1 through 3, evidence 15-1 through 4, and evidence 15-1 through 4 are included in the purport of the whole pleadings:
On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a partnership agreement with the content that DPCs (hereinafter “instant PCs”) are to be jointly operated by setting at 50% the Plaintiff’s equity and 50% the Defendant’s equity (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).
At the time of the conclusion of the instant East Business Agreement, the Defendant: “The 100 computers located in the instant PC are owned in full, and the value of assets, including various collection devices and premium, is 220,000,000 won; all computers are installed a window program, and there is no problem in the operation of the fire-fighting certificate and the certificate of the completion of the electrical work. If the Plaintiff invests KRW 110,000,000,000, the amount shall exceed 50% of the PC’s equity interest.” The Defendant received from the Plaintiff a total of KRW 30,000,000 on March 23, 2013 and KRW 30,000,000 on March 24, 2013, the sum of KRW 10,000,000,000 on April 30, 2012.”
In addition, on May 17, 2012, the Defendant made a false statement to the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff lends KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff, it shall be repaid until July 31, 2012, and shall pay 10% interest at the rate of 10%.” The Defendant received a remittance from the Plaintiff on May 17, 2012 as borrowed money.
As above, the defendant was prosecuted by deceiving the plaintiff and taking over a total of KRW 128,00,00 (110,000,000 after deducting interest from the above borrowed amount of KRW 18,00,00) from the plaintiff, and was sentenced to a judgment of conviction for one year by imprisonment with prison labor in the first instance trial on December 27, 2013 (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2013DaMa892, supra). The defendant and the prosecutor are all dissatisfied with the judgment, and the appeal court is currently proceeding.