logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.02 2016나2014803
위약금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part of "1. Recognizing the facts of recognition" in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the fact that the 5th "original project" under the 2th of the judgment of the court of first instance is applied to the restoration project. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant B’s assertion on the Defendant Gold Industry was granted the power of representation from the Defendant Gold Industry, and drafted the instant agreement with the Plaintiff as his agent, and the Defendant Gold Industry paid KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2014, in violation of Article 2(2) of the instant agreement, which provided that the Plaintiff shall pay the amount of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff until January 22, 2015, in violation of Article 2(2) of the instant agreement, and paid KRW 1,810,00,00 for delay damages up to that time. As such, the Defendant Gold Industry is obligated to pay the Plaintiff penalty of KRW 300,00,000 and delay damages pursuant to Article 2(6) of the instant agreement.

(2) In a preliminary assertion against Defendant B, if Defendant B did not receive the power of representation on the preparation of the instant agreement from Defendant Gold Industry, Defendant B, as an unauthorized agent, was responsible for performing the instant agreement in accordance with the Plaintiff’s choice pursuant to Article 135(1) of the Civil Act, and thus, Defendant B is liable to pay the Plaintiff penalty of KRW 300,000,000 and delay damages as stipulated in Article 2(6) of the instant agreement.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that if the Plaintiff received KRW 150,000,000 from December 31, 2014, which is the date of payment stipulated in Article 2(2) of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff may claim KRW 300,000,000 to the other party to the instant agreement, which is the date of payment, as well as the other point.

(2) The "(the plaintiff)" (the plaintiff) in Article 2 (6) of the Agreement shall be set forth above.

arrow