(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나31186

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나31186

투자금반환청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants, despite the lack of actual intent and ability to produce the film, shall make a contribution to the film called “D” to the Plaintiff, and that they shall obtain the film investment amount of KRW 30 million by fraud, thereby seeking compensation for damages arising from the tort.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff’s statement from Defendant C that “I would play a serious role in the film “D” that deals with the liverity of the film production case if I invest KRW 30 million in the film production,” and that on November 18, 2014, I remitted KRW 30 million to Defendant C Co., Ltd.; however, it is recognized that the Defendants did not make the Plaintiff contribute to the film.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendants comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including each number), namely, the following circumstances: (a) it appears that the Defendants did not produce motion pictures due to the Plaintiff’s scenarios and the distribution situation after the Defendants’ office; and (b) the Plaintiff’s investment contract prepared with Defendant B, stated that “the Plaintiff shall make best efforts to recover principal at the next time when the production problem arises; (c) the Defendants offered the Plaintiff’s contribution to the “E” for the next time; (d) the Defendants filed a fraudulent complaint against the Defendants, but the Defendants were subject to a disposition of suspicion by the prosecutor of the Seoul Northern District Prosecutors’ Office on August 26, 2016, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants deceiving the Plaintiff and obtained the instant motion picture production costs.

3. If so, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate with this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.22 2014나41994

-서울남부지법 2008. 6. 5. 선고 2007가합18479 판결

-서울행정법원 2017. 02. 10. 선고 2016구합58765 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.19 2018가합550942

-서울고등법원 2017. 12. 13. 선고 2017누39756 판결