logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단4982
계약금 등 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Multi-water Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “multi-water”) is a company that produces and supplies food-emulating appliances.

B. Around January 24, 2014, the Defendant entered into a branch contract with a multi-water company and operated the said company’s C branch office.

C. On March 17, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired the business of the C branch office from the Defendant in the amount of KRW 40 million.

However, the name of the transferee under the transfer contract was written as D.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer of business”). D.

As the acquisition price of the instant transfer contract, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant on March 17, 2015 and KRW 30 million on April 30, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The primary claimant is obligated to obtain approval for the transfer of business from multi-water in accordance with the instant contract and deliver 50 years of food to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff failed to perform all of the above obligations. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the instant contract by the delivery of the instant complaint, and sought payment of KRW 40 million and delay damages to the Defendant due to the cancellation of the contract. 2) Notwithstanding that the Defendant was not entitled to provide the Plaintiff with 50 years of food and beverage supply to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, who received unjust enrichment by receiving 20 million of food and beverage supply from the Plaintiff, should return the said money to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not perform its obligations under the above contract because it did not obtain prior written approval from the head office as to the instant business transfer contract.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 5 and the whole arguments, Article 16 of the branch contract between the defendant and multi-water, "the defendant" is written from multi-water in advance.

arrow