logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2017.06.29 2016가단1180
공사계약금 반환
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff is the third floor building on the ground located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) is a corporation with the purpose of carpet string business, etc.

B. On September 16, 2015, E, the spouse of the Plaintiff, entered into a contract for a branch office with Defendant C who represented by Defendant B, and entered into a “B” branch office contract with Defendant C, and agreed to open the F points on the third floor of the instant building, and that “facilities, equipment, and super-dos are installed at KRW 80 million.”

C. After entering into a franchise store contract, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise store contract for not only three floors among the instant buildings, but also for the entire building, and entered into a summary franchise store contract with Defendant B on October 26, 2016 as follows.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The amount of a store contract to be established

1. Three floors of the instant building: 80 million won;

2. The 1st and second floor of the building in this case 45 million won;

3.The above 1th and second floors are the amount agreed upon with the F Points at the expense of additional open.

4. Total amount of 125 million won.

5. The scope of open opening shall be based on the matters indicated in the estimates and drawings on the execution.

(including private goods) . 6. P. S. T. (including private goods), 6. P. S. T. H. all sections relating to open.

Defendant B’s performance and discontinuance of the construction work of the instant building 1) around September 2015, Defendant B sent a text message message to the effect that Defendant B could not perform the instant contract unless the instant contract was concluded with the Plaintiff on November 19, 2015, while Defendant B sent out a text message to the effect that Defendant B could not perform the instant contract unless the instant contract was concluded with the Plaintiff on the part of November 19, 2015, because the interior of the instant building was in the form of KRW 35 million (final agreed upon).

E. Defendant B’s payment of construction cost received.

arrow