beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.07.21 2016가단80140

손해배상(기)

Text

1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the 11,678,611 won against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition - Part 1 (excluding manufacturing places) of the first floor D, B, Dong B, Dong-dong-gu, Seoyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, which indicated the subject matter of use - The area of the subject matter of use is 115.70 square meters (35 square meters) at coffee stores 115.70 square meters (35 square meters) - during the service period from February 10, 2016 to February 9, 2018 - The deposit “A” (the defendant of this case) and “B” (the plaintiff of this case) shall be postponed by

Provided, That even during the contract period, the security deposit may be determined according to the needs of the "A".

-one million won per month (2,00,000,000,000,000,000) as the monthly fee for the use of the store;

Types of Business: The monthly fee under this contract pursuant to Article 6 (2) of the Resting restaurant business (the details of goods and services shall be separately prepared and sold after obtaining permission from A) shall be counted from the commencement date of the business contracted between A and B.

However, this shall not apply where it is impossible to run business from the date of commencement of the agreed business without any reasons attributable to "B".

Article 7 (1) "B" shall pay a monthly fee in advance on the first day of each month.

원고는 2015. 2.경부터 별지 기재 부동산(이하 ‘이 사건 음식점’이라고 한다) 옆 건물인 ‘C 마트’ 앞에서 떡볶이순대 등을 팔다가 이 사건 음식점이 비어있는 것을 확인하고, 거기에서 떡볶이 등을 팔기 위하여 2016. 2. 10. 피고와 수수료 운영 계약(이하 ‘이 사건 운영 계약’이라고 한다)을 체결하였는데, 주요 내용은 다음과 같다.

B. However, in contrast to the instant operational contract, monthly fees were changed to KRW 2 million per month, including surtax, unlike the instant operational contract.

The Plaintiff, after preparing for business, was engaged in business from February 15, 2016, paid 2 million won in advance to the Defendant on the same day.

C. The Plaintiff used business registration registered in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant changed the business form on March 30, 2016 to “general restaurant”.