(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018나34203

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018나34203

기타(금전)

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells sports products, such as swimming clothes, with the trademark “STL”.

B. Around June 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff supplies sports supplies to the Defendant, and the Defendant sells them at its own store located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu and divide the total amount of the sales proceeds by 50% (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The Defendant sold sports goods, such as swimming clothes, supplied by the Plaintiff from June 13, 2016 to November 30, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] No dispute, the purport of the whole argument

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for settlement of accounts, etc. against the Defendant that the Defendant did not receive KRW 3,203,200, total amount of KRW 2,912,00 for settlement of accounts for November 2016 and value-added tax of KRW 291,200.

As to this, the Defendant’s instant contract is a franchise franchise franchise franchise agreement or a partnership business agreement on the sale of sports goods, and there is no obligation to pay value-added tax on the amount of settlement that the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff merely because it is merely a dividend. Nevertheless, as the Plaintiff received from the Defendant the total value-added tax on each settlement amount from June to October 2016 from the Defendant and unjust enrichment, it is against the Plaintiff’s delivery of the statement of reasons for appeal as of May 23, 2018, which offsets KRW 2,912,00,000 by the Plaintiff’s claim for the settlement amount from November 2016.

B. After the termination of the instant contract, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not return to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 1,400,000 of the inventory goods.

Accordingly, the defendant's return of all inventory goods to the plaintiff after the termination of the contract of this case.

3. Determination

A. The instant contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, such as the settlement of accounts, was concluded only verbally.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2017.03.28 2016가단44337

-서울북부지방법원 2019.09.17 2018가단101731

-서울동부지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가합10722

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단250599

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.23 2016가단5255722