(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.11.17 2016가단11914

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.11.17 2016가단11914

청구이의의소

Text

1. The counterclaim claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C (hereinafter “C”) is a company that has promoted a housing construction project (hereinafter “instant project”) on the land of Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu and 11, and the Lessee is the representative director of C.

B. On November 17, 2006, C entered into a service contract with a counter defendant and C to request services relating to the conclusion of the sales contract or the confirmation of sales confirmation on the land and the land buildings for the instant project from November 17, 2006 to December 31, 2006 for the instant project (hereinafter “instant service contract”). On the same day, C paid the down payment of KRW 30 million to the counter defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The counterclaim asserts that the judgment on the cause of the claim has sustained damages equivalent to KRW 19,440,000 paid as office rent and management expenses for one year since the counterclaim Defendant failed to perform the instant service contract, and that the counterclaim Defendant was liable for damages equivalent to the above money due to nonperformance.

The claim of the Counterclaim and the Counterclaim was based on the premise that the instant service contract was concluded between the Counterclaim Defendant and the Counterclaim Plaintiff, but the parties to the instant service contract are not C but C, so even if the Counterclaim Defendant failed to perform the obligations under the instant service contract.

Even if the counter-party is not a party, he can not claim damages against the counter-party.

In addition, even if the statement in Eul evidence No. 5 is based on the fact that the tenant in the office is not the Lessee but the E, it is difficult to view that the Lessee leased the office on the sole basis of the statement in the evidence Nos. 5 and 6, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.09.24 2014가단83681

-대전지방법원 2015.01.21 2014나10692

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.31 2014가단63634

-의정부지방법원 2015.02.13 2014가단8066

-대전지방법원천안지원 2014.07.15 2014가단3678