Claims ‘no responsibility’ even after writing 1.5 billion won agreement... Court says “Handwritten signature, responsibility is clear”

An investor who believed in the promise of ‘principal guarantee’ and handed over 1 billion won but was at risk of not getting it back, recovered most of his investment after a legal battle.

On the 13th of last month, the Seoul Southern District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by A, a man in his 30s, against his acquaintance B, saying, "The defendant should pay the plaintiff approximately 1.483 billion won and delay damages for the same."

In 2022, Mr. A gave a total of 1.18 billion won to Mr. B in the name of virtual currency investment and fund lending. However, contrary to his original promise to guarantee principal, Mr. B repeatedly postponed repayment. Afterwards, Mr. B wrote an additional memorandum of performance and agreement for Mr. A, but the repayment was never made. Accordingly, Mr. A filed a criminal complaint against Mr. B and also filed a civil suit.

Mr. B claimed that he was only an intermediate introduction. At the same time, he emphasized that Mr. A violated the ‘duty of cooperation’ in the agreement by suing him for violating the Special Police Act. If repayment is not made, it was decided to set up a mortgage of 1.5 billion won to Mr. A using the Cambodian land owned by Mr. B as collateral, but the intention is that even this has become impossible due to the criminal complaint.

On the other hand, the court accepted most of Mr. A's claims. The court explained, "There is no basis to believe that repayment was delayed due to the plaintiff's complaint, and since the defendant clearly stated in the agreement that he would take responsibility directly, we cannot accept the claim that he was a simple introducer." However, the portion of the agreed interest that exceeded the legal maximum interest rate of 20% per annum was deemed invalid, and it was ruled that approximately 1.483 billion won, excluding this amount, should be paid.

Attorney Kim Won-sang of Daeryun Law Firm, who served as Mr. A's legal representative, said, "The defendant spoke as if the plaintiff's obligation to cooperate was a prerequisite for a refund, but they actively explained that this was an argument that changed the relationship between time and order." He added, "A document containing the specific amount and intention to repay, not a verbal promise, was used as conclusive evidence to prove the defendant's obligation to pay, and we were able to achieve a good result."

Reporter Kwon Byeong-seok (bsk730@fnnews.com)

[View full article]
 Claims 'no liability' even after writing 1.5 billion won agreement... Court says "Handwritten signature, responsibility is clear" (Shortcut)