logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.17 2014가합33678
합의금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff, as a temple under the defendant's jurisdiction, worked as the National Assembly member since December 20, 199 from D E located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu C.

B. Around May 200, the Defendant’s representative G, E’s chief F, and D’s representative H agreed to sell the E site, etc. and repay the E’s debt with the proceeds of sale, and the said F delegated the Plaintiff with the authority to the said agreement on September 10, 202.

C. On June 30, 2004, N.N., who had been employed as Defendant General Director, drafted a written agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the following contents (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

3. At the time of sale, the sale agrees to the total amount of its liabilities in KRW 496,00,000.

5. Business promotion expenses shall be paid twice in the amount of KRW 10,000,000 each three months.

10,000,000 won per July 1, and 10,000,000 won per October 1, 200,000 won per July 1, 200, shall be received by the plaintiff (Plaintiff).

The defendant remitted 10,00,000 won to the account in the name of E on July 1, 2004, and 10,000,000 won on September 24, 2004, respectively.

E. On June 30, 2006, the Defendant sold E-education hall building and its site to Tae-ro Construction Co., Ltd. for KRW 5.5 billion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 8 evidence, Eul 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion was in office as a general manager of E in performing the purification and possession of E, and the defendant agreed to sell E to the plaintiff on June 30, 2004 and pay to the plaintiff KRW 496,00,000, which is part of E's purification project. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 331,00,000, which is part of it.

3. In full view of the reasoning of the argument in Gap's evidence No. 4, the party which written the instant agreement is acknowledged as having the signature of J, which is the plaintiff's personal signature on the side of the above "Defendant No. Dogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggging

However, each entry of Eul 2 to 5 evidence is written.

arrow