beta
Text
1. Defendant B Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28.7 million and the interest thereon from February 18, 2016 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant company
(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;
(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C and D
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff transferred KRW 28.7 million to the Defendant Company’s account on March 3, 2015, on the ground that he/she guaranteed the principal when he/she invests money in the Defendant Company, and granted 2% of the principal monthly after one month from the date of investment.
(2) After the incorporation of Defendant C and D, from around November 2013, in collusion with the establishment of the Defendant Company, in soliciting investors and the assignees of bonds for the purchase and sale business of the financial institutions, Defendant C and D did not preferentially use the investment and the acquisition price of bonds for the said business, and operated the Defendant Company in the way of “refluencing” by using the refund or settlement of dividends to the prior investors or the assignees of bonds. After the purchase of non-performing loans with a high rate of interest, Defendant C and D repaid the principal and interest of the bonds and the acquisition price of the bonds from the assignees of the bonds. Since all of the non-performing loans were offered as collateral to the financial institutions with pledge loans, the Defendant Company could not receive the dividends of the individual non-performing loans
Nevertheless, Defendant C and D conspired to acquire the settlement money within 5 to 7 business days from the date of distribution by deceiving the victims as if they could have paid the settlement money within 5 to 7 business days when they could have concealed the above facts, or when the auction procedure for a specific non-performing loan is in progress, by deceiving the victims to acquire the down payment amount equivalent to 20% of the value of the non-performing loan and 1% of the value of the non-performing loan and the sales
(3) The Plaintiff was introduced from E and F to the Defendant Company, and was employed by E and F.