(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.07 2016가단6368

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.09.07 2016가단6368

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In 2007, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff made an oral agreement to sell the instant real estate to a third party at the time of the lapse of three years when it invested part of the purchase price of the land and the building on the land of Dobong-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to settle the profits accrued from the investment.

On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant as investment, and the Defendant invested KRW 100 million and sold the instant real estate at KRW 567 million on November 19, 201 after purchasing KRW 320 million.

Therefore, the Defendant, out of KRW 57 million, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million equivalent to the Plaintiff’s investment ratio of KRW 15 million among the net income of KRW 195 million remaining after deducting the expenses, etc. used at the time of purchase of the instant real estate, and paid KRW 65 million among them. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

2. According to the facts that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant on February 22, 2007, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the evidence Nos. 1-2 and 2, D may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate in KRW 567 million to E and F after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on February 23, 2007.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 1-2, the defendant can recognize that he paid to the plaintiff KRW 8.7 million on August 18, 2008, and KRW 1.1 million on February 19, 2010. As above, in light of the fact that the defendant paid part of the money to the plaintiff before selling the real estate of this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the defendant agreed to distribute profits to the plaintiff according to the investment ratio after selling the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가단22340

-수원지방법원 2018.08.09 2017가단537103

-서울행정법원 2016. 04. 20. 선고 2015구단50552 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.15 2016노4724

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.20 2014고단3100