beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. (1) On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff invested KRW 120 million in total,00,000,000,000 to the Defendant, on December 29, 2014, at the interest rate of 25% per annum from the Defendant. On December 29, 2014, the Plaintiff invested KRW 120 million to the Defendant.
(2) In addition, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 9 million on July 27, 2015 and KRW 21 million on July 29, 2015 with respect to the Defendant’s gold collection business.
B. On May 16, 2017, the Defendant was indicted for the criminal facts by deceiving the Plaintiff as follows, and was convicted of fraud, etc. on February 22, 2018 (Seoul District Court 2017Da3369), which became final and conclusive on March 3, 2018.
(1) In fact, since around 2009, the Defendant was running a personal business entity called “C” and discontinued its business due to the failure to operate the business, and did not have any connection with “C”. At that time, there was no fact that there was no fact that the vehicle loan business was conducted, and there was no intention or ability to pay the Plaintiff the proceeds according to the commitment, since the investment funds received from the Plaintiff were to be used as personal living expenses, etc.
Nevertheless, on December 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) stated to the Plaintiff that “if the Plaintiff has invested money in the vehicle-backed loan business in Gangwon-do, he would pay 2% of the principal interest per month and return the principal after the lapse of one year; and (b) received a transfer from the Plaintiff of KRW 120 million in total, including KRW 20 million on February 2, 2015 and KRW 120 million on February 2, 2015.
(2) In fact, the Defendant received the transfer of the mining right from the external third village on July 16, 2015, but did not actually proceed with the collection of the death penalty, and did not have any profit related thereto. The Defendant did not directly verify whether the collection of the death penalty would have future profitability. Therefore, there was no intention or ability to return the proceeds or principal as promised to the Plaintiff.
Nevertheless, the defendant on July 2015.