logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가단6250
계약불이행으로 인한 손해배상의 소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 3, 2018, the Defendant purchased KRW 13,50,00,000,00 in total, from around February to March 2, 2018, the purchase price for the 13 lots of land (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 9 lots of land E-ri in Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Around March 14, 2018, the Defendant and F entered into a business agreement with each other to cooperate with respect to the sale and purchase of the instant land, the business to designate a hot spring hole protection zone related to the instant land, the business to approve designation of a hot spring development project operator, and the business related to permission (hereinafter “instant business agreement”), and the specific details are as shown in the attached Table.

C. Meanwhile, on March 14, 2018, F established Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and took office as its representative (in-house director) to carry out the instant agreement. The Defendant deposited KRW 200 million in total with the Plaintiff’s account on March 22, 2018 and March 29, 2018 pursuant to the instant business agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff obtained approval for designation of a hot spring hole protection zone without a hot spring pursuant to the instant business agreement, and requested cooperation from the Defendant to obtain the said hot spring development business, but the Defendant did not perform the duty of cooperation pursuant to Article 2(1)3 and 4 of the instant business agreement, such as cutting and diving contact with the Plaintiff Company, and violated the duty of payment of expenses pursuant to Article 3.

Plaintiff

In order to implement the instant business agreement, the Company disbursed total of KRW 293,68,882 (including unpaid construction cost of KRW 60,930,00) as construction cost, etc. for the said hot spring development business, but the Defendant could not achieve the purpose of the instant business agreement due to the Defendant’s breach of such duty, and thus, from the said construction cost.

arrow