(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.17 2015나52157

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.17 2015나52157

계약금반환청구 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a consulting contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on the 4 to 9th floor (hereinafter “instant building”) of the Yongsan-si District Cbuilding, and the key contents thereof are as follows.

The plaintiff shall request the defendant to provide consulting services with respect to the attraction of hospital and clinic members of the building of this case, and the defendant shall make his best to employ hospital and clinic members on the basis of the details notified by the plaintiff.

- If the defendant succeeded to the attraction of the hospital at the request of the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall pay the service consulting cost required by the defendant simultaneously with the contract (mutual consultation). If the hospital (won) contract is terminated due to inevitable circumstances, the defendant shall fully refund the down payment and the consulting cost to the plaintiff.

Remuneration for remuneration consulting: 50,000 won (payment of 10,000 won on March 2014, the balance of 40,000 won) shall not be refunded when the Plaintiff unilaterally terminates the contract in violation of the contract (payment at the same time as the hospital contract).

Provided, That if there is a justifiable reason, it shall be null and void.

- A special agreement - The above remuneration shall be limited to both fixed and outdoor, and internal departments.

- The remuneration for shop occupants of other hospital(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s) shall be separately provided.

B. Pursuant to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 10 million, totaling KRW 5 million on March 26, 2014 and KRW 10 million on April 2, 2014, out of the consulting remuneration.

C. However, the Plaintiff, who heard the opinion that the hospital and the council member was not located in the instant building for a considerable period of time thereafter, and that “it is difficult to rent in and out the instant building” from the Defendant, expressed an intention to cancel the instant contract by delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings.

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2016.05.26 2015나21144

-인천지방법원부천지원 2017.12.07 2017가단102534

-수원지방법원 2014.05.30 2013가합11402

-서울남부지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가단14032