logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.03.25 2019가단225099
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) operates the coding exchange between “E”.

Defendant D is the representative of the Defendant Company.

B. The Defendant Company: (a) made a self-token of the name of “F” that can be used in the Exchange; and (b) made an advertisement that “F holders pay a certain amount of money out of the exchange fee to the F holders, such as the method of paying to them, and the method of payment of token in accordance with the commission used for the transaction. In order to overcome the short point of the token of the Exchange itself, the Defendant Company offered various options and user incentives to overcome the token; and (c) recruited F buyers by offering a variety of options and user incentives to overcome the token; and (d) reducing the token in the form of a token and incineration.”

C. Around October 2018, Defendant Company sold F in a closed manner to limited persons, subject to the provision of F of 1700,000 10,000 100 100 1000 100 1000 1000 10

(hereinafter referred to as “froom sales”). At the time of sales of brooms, Plaintiff A paid 785 Ebrooms and Plaintiff B paid 150 Ebrooms to the Defendant Company, respectively, and was allocated F corresponding thereto.

Around December 2018, Defendant Company sold 12 billion F on the condition that it provides 12.5 billion won per 1 additional F.

(hereinafter referred to as “pre-sale”). At the time of pre-sale, the Plaintiff A paid 50 interest rates, and the Plaintiff B paid 110 interest rates to the Defendant Company, respectively, and was allocated F corresponding thereto.

E. The Defendant Company issued F and listed the E Exchange at the end of December 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-5, 23-25, Eul 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. F constitutes an investment contract securities under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter “Capital Markets Act”), and thus, the Defendants should be issued in accordance with the procedure for issuing securities under the Capital Markets Act.

arrow