(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.09.23 2014나8006

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.09.23 2014나8006

정산금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons stated in this subsection are the same as the corresponding part of the second to fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this Court shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff invested KRW 100 million in accordance with Article 1 of the instant trade agreement, but completed the distribution of the Defendant and the remaining property by dividing the clothing purchased with the said investment deposit from May 2010 by the Defendant’s mother E and 1/2.

However, since the defendant collected and retained 100 million won of the deposit money of the store of this case invested pursuant to Article 3 of the business partnership contract of this case, it is obligated to pay 1/2 of the remaining assets to the plaintiff as a distribution of remaining assets after the contract of this case is terminated.

B. First of all, in order for the Plaintiff to seek payment of KRW 50 million out of the deposited money in the instant store as a claim for distribution of remaining property after the completion of the partnership relationship, the Defendant should be recognized to have recovered KRW 100 million from the deposited money in the instant store. Since the Defendant did not actually pay KRW 100 million to E, it is found that the Defendant and the Defendant did not actually receive KRW 100 million (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200 million; 200 million should be seen as collecting the deposited money even if the Plaintiff acknowledged that the Defendant and E did not actually receive KRW 100 million, and the Defendant agreed to invest KRW 100 million in Article 3 of the instant partnership agreement, which is the owner of the instant store, and concluded and terminated the instant store lease contract with KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000,0000,00

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant was holding the deposit amount of KRW 100 million.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나24234

-창원지방법원 2016.10.27 2015나36857

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.07.17 2019가단205601

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단43110

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.09 2014가합557242