logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2010.11.18 2009가합7947
정산금등
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiffs for 89,027,046 won and the period from April 25, 2009 to November 18, 2010.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

Plaintiff

B is a building company specializing in reinforced concrete construction, and the plaintiff A is his wife.

Defendant C is a person who carries out a new house sale business, and Defendant C is a person who finds it.

B. On November 2001, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to operate a business of newly constructing and selling multi-household houses on the land of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu and F, and accordingly, they newly constructed one multi-household house on the above two land (hereinafter “E multi-household house”) and completed the sale of multi-household houses thereafter.

(hereinafter referred to as “first partnership business”). (c)

around June 2003, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to operate a new construction of multi-household housing on the ground of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and a new construction of multi-household housing on the ground of the same Gu H, and accordingly, they newly built one multi-household housing on each of the above lands (hereinafter “G multi-household housing and H multi-household housing”) and completed the sale of H multi-household housing.

Meanwhile, from September 2003 to September 2003, the plaintiffs performed a new construction work of officetels on the same I ground of the same Gu and completed the construction work around July 2004 in accordance with the agreement with the defendants.

(hereinafter referred to as “Itel” and, as seen later, there is dispute as to whether the Itel sales business is partnership with the Plaintiffs and the Defendants; however, once all G multi-household construction business, H multi-household construction business, H multi-household construction business, and Itel new sales business, all of the Itel sales business are referred to as “the second partnership business”). 2. Determination as to the Plaintiffs’ claims on the first partnership business

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to operate a new construction and sale business of each apartment house E and F under the condition that the costs and profits are divided by 1/2, respectively, around November 2001. 2) The purchase price of the land is E: The land was owned by the Plaintiff B from the time of the same business agreement.

arrow