beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.01.20 2014가단16898

보증금반환 등

Text

1. The Defendants each of the KRW 19,700,000 to the Plaintiff, and 5% per annum from June 18, 2014 to January 20, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 21, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants (hereinafter “instant contract”) under the following terms and conditions. Pursuant to Article 5 of the instant contract, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,000,000 in total to Defendant B’s account, KRW 10,000,000 on October 23, 2013, and KRW 25,000,000 on November 11, 2013.

A: Defendant B and C’s trade name: The representative of the E, the Plaintiff, and B, shall enter into a contract with the competent Party for the operation of the stone-free cover among the remaining goods, as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose) This Agreement is aimed at promoting the efficiency of mutual business and pursuing mutual interests by faithfully performing the duties as a staff member in charge of after-the-counter events, who controls and supervises the remaining duties between A and B.

Article 3 (Price of Goods and Method of Approval)

1.The value of the goods supplied to B by Party A shall be determined by item and appended to the addition by item;

2. The settlement method shall be the settlement key after the event.

Article 5 (Deposit for Defects)

1. The warranty bond shall be set at KRW 3,00,000,000,000, in order to proceed with Gap's unexpected events, and Eul shall be deposited with Gap at the same time as this contract is concluded.

Provided, That no interest on the deposit shall accrue.

2. The deposit shall be refunded to Gap and Eul after the expiration of the contract after Gap and Eul are settled.

Article 6 (Continuation and Termination of Agreement)

1. The terms of this Agreement shall be one year;

B. With respect to the calculation of the waste, part of the customers using the Plaintiff’s stone events were directly paid to the Defendants other than the Plaintiff, and the sum of the amount is KRW 4,400,000.

C. On June 2014, the Plaintiff expressed the intent to terminate the instant contract to the Defendants, in fact, in the status of the de facto discontinuation of the cover sheet operated by the Defendants.