(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.12.04 2019나683

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 2019.12.04 2019나683

계금

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. Basic facts

A. On November 22, 2014, the Defendant: (a) as a leader on November 22, 2014; (b) together with the Plaintiff A (1) and B (2) who is the fraternity members, the Plaintiff, etc., the total of KRW 25 units; and (c) the completion period on November 22, 2016; and (d) the amount of KRW 10,000,000:

3.(a)

2) As seen in the foregoing paragraph, the sequences did not have been established in advance, and were to be paid by the Defendant at the request of the members of the fraternity (hereinafter referred to as the “instant fraternitys”). The members of the Defendant and the Plaintiffs, etc. agreed to pay KRW 400,000 per unit, around 22th day of each month, and to additionally pay KRW 70,000 per unit interest after the receipt of the fraternitys.

B. After receiving the fraternity, D, which is the cause of the instant fraternity, failed to pay the fraternity to the Defendant from March 2016, and the instant fraternity was dispatched around October 2016.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, and the Plaintiff A, from November 22, 2014 to October 21, 2016, paid a total of KRW 9,600,000, and Defendant B, from November 22, 2014 to August 25, 2016, a total of KRW 17,600,000 from November 22, 2014 to August 25, 2016, however, the Plaintiffs did not receive the fraternity from the Defendant.

On September 14, 2017, the Defendant paid KRW 1,500,000 to the Plaintiffs respectively.

E. The Defendant, at the Seoul Northern District Court on December 13, 2018, did not have any particular income at the time. The Defendant: (a) opened the two accounts in this case; (b) opened the two accounts; and (c) opened the two accounts; and (d) opened the two accounts; and (c) failed to pay the deposit amount more than the first one on March 2016; and (b) there was no normal operation of the accounts due to the risk that the accounts were destroyed, for some of the fraternitys did not pay the deposit amount from around that time; and (c) even if the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who opened the accounts No. 23 and No. 24, opened the accounts No. 25, the Defendant did not have any intent or ability to pay the deposit amount on the agreed date.

Nevertheless, the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.15 2017가단16119

-부산지방법원 2017.12.12 2016가단51237

-부산지방법원 2017.01.25 2015가단66768

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.18 2016고정2

-서울남부지방법원 2014.11.27 2014나4151