(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2016.07.21 2016가단3095

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) 창원지방법원통영지원 2016.07.21 2016가단3095

권리금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 21,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 21, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Defendant, upon accepting D frequency E (hereinafter “instant frequency”) from the Plaintiff, agreed on April 21, 2015 to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,50,000 for the premium of April 21, 2015 (hereinafter “the premium of this case”) in monthly installments, and the Defendant paid KRW 4 million out of the premium of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 21, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order with respect to the remainder of 2.1 million won for the instant premium and the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) did not receive retirement allowances for one year and E before the Defendant acquired the instant collection, and the Defendant would pay the remainder in division after settling the amount of retirement allowances and making the amount of the remainder after the settlement of the amount of the retirement allowances. 2) The Defendant demanded the full payment of KRW 3 million per day per day, such as the number of days in which it is difficult to prepare the amount of money to be paid.

B. 1) First of all, even if the defendant (or E) asserts that he has a retirement allowance claim against the plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Next, the installment payment period of the premium of this case was fully set, and the defendant cannot decide whether to pay the premium in installments. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.01.14 2020나84327

-부산지방법원 2014.04.24 2013고단6956

-창원지방법원 2019.12.05 2019가단100656

-창원지방법원통영지원 2016.12.22 2016가단980

-부산지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가합14484