beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.11 2019나14560 (1)

약정금

Text

1. The appeal as to the principal lawsuit by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the claim as to the principal lawsuit expanded at the trial, and the additional principal lawsuit.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the additional party members is added to the following judgments on the plaintiff's conjunctive main claim, and the "decision on the counterclaim claim" of the court of first instance is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following dismissal: therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim was terminated on September 201, when Defendant D’s business contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants with the sole village, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants were jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the settlement amount of KRW 133,259,434 with the settlement amount due to the termination of the business contract. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendants were to convert the Plaintiff into the single branch of Defendant D’s new village, with its opening on September 201, but the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to provide the said new branch of the Plaintiff with mutual aid by equal share of profits until a certain point of time, and then, the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to provide the said new branch of the Plaintiff with mutual aid to the effect that the operation of the said new branch of the said new branch of the Plaintiff would be stable from the point of time on which the said new branch of the Plaintiff had been operated on July 7, 2012, and there was no reason to view the Plaintiff’s separate settlement agreement from the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

(b) The amendment portion;

3. The Defendants’ determination as to the counterclaims is ① the Plaintiff’s college operated by the Plaintiff around May 2016, which was treated by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and a third party.