(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015나1305

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 2016.01.15 2015나1305

영업지원금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. (1) The Defendant was in office as B from January 1, 2014 to March 31, 2014. (2) Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,250,000 per month the sales subsidy to the Defendant from January 1, 2014 to March 2014.

B. Around April 2014, the Defendant agreed to resign from the Plaintiff and to return KRW 8250,000 to July 31, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). 【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 6-1, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 5, the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the refund amounting to 8.25 million won under the instant agreement and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from October 2, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff following the date of return under the instant agreement, barring any special circumstances.

B. On April 2014, the Defendant asserts that, on the part of the Defendant’s argument as to the allegation of the 1st century, the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff, prepared a formal resignation and continued to conduct business activities even after the preparation of the resignation and retired on or after the end of May 2014. As such, the Defendant’s expression of intent that “8,40,000 won who was supported by the Plaintiff shall be paid by July 31, 2014,” as indicated in the resignation document, is not true, and that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that he was not the Plaintiff’s intention, and thus, the declaration of intention to return the business subsidy stated in the resignation document is null and void pursuant to the proviso of Article 10

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the declaration of intention to return the business subsidy stated in the resignation document constitutes a true declaration of intention, not the truth.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.01 2015나1299

-수원지방법원 2016.10.06 2016가단10212

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.04.30 2018나890

-서울고등법원 2017.09.01 2016나2048813

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.19 2018나63141