(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나31795

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나31795

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and ancillary costs.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, around January 9, 2014, requested the introduction of the person who will take over the right of lease of this case, and agreed to pay 50% of the amount exceeding KRW 80 million, out of the premium to be paid by the transferee, to the Plaintiff as remuneration, upon requesting the introduction of the person who will take over the right of lease of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant arrangement”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff completed the arrangement with the Defendant and Nonparty PS&M marketing (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) to conclude a contract on acquisition of the right to lease of this case with the amount of KRW 140 million to KRW 140 million, thereby fulfilling all the obligations under the said arrangement.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 30 million [the agreed amount of KRW 140 million - KRW 80 million] and damages for delay.

B) Even if the contract of this case was made on the condition that the defendant actually concludes the lease transfer agreement and receives the premium, the defendant refused to conclude the contract without any reason. This constitutes an act of interference with the fulfillment of conditions contrary to good faith and thus the conditions have been fulfilled. As such, the defendant also should pay 30 million won and its delay damages in accordance with the contract of this case. (ii) Even though the plaintiff arranged the non-party company as the main agent of the contract of this case and affixed the seal to the contract, the defendant refused to conclude the contract without any reason that the date of the conclusion of the lease transfer agreement is the date of the conclusion of the contract.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단105629

-수원지방법원안양지원 2013.10.25 2012가합6566

-서울동부지방법원 2018.10.31 2018나20264

-수원지방법원 2018.11.29 2018나70356

-대법원 2001. 9. 28. 선고 2001다10960 판결