logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.12 2017나54800
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) No. 2, No. 14,15 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter "the store of this case") shall be referred to as "the store of this case or store of this case"; and (b) No. 3, No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be referred to as "the specific purchase transaction contract of this case is terminated on March 21, 2017; (c) the amount to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as damages or unjust enrichment (the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 10,00,000 from July 1, 2016 to March 21, 2017, which is the day following the termination of the operation entrustment contract of the store of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant)"; and (d) No. 5, No. 15 of the judgment of first instance shall be added to "the part "E" through No. 64 of the judgment of this case, and Article 20 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be cited as follows.

2. The plaintiff asserts that he entrusted the operation of the store of this case to the defendant, and that the defendant acquired the right of operation of the store of this case from the plaintiff. At least, the defendant's operation of the store of this case was based on the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's operation of the store of this case was not infringed upon the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and E by running the store of this case. As seen above, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant agreed to receive 30 million won and 1,000,000 won for the entrustment of operation of the store of this case, and that it is not recognized as a consignment agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, since there is no evidence to prove that it was not recognized as such, the plaintiff received after June 30, 2016, the amount calculated by deducting the commission fee from the sales amount of the store of this case from E.

arrow