(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.08.30 2018나61817

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 2019.08.30 2018나61817

계금

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant delegated blanks to C with regard to the extension of the extension of the extension of the extension of the extension of the extension, and the plaintiff is a member of the extension of the extension of the extension of the extension through C.

The Plaintiff, via C, joined the Defendant’s 30 million won (1.5 million won per month of the deposit amount) starting on June 20, 2016, and paid 18 million won in total for 12 times, and (2) paid 14.3 million won per 11 times, beginning on January 7, 2017, after opening a 20 million won (1.3 million won per month of the deposit amount), and paid 50 million won (2.5 million won per month of the deposit amount) beginning on April 3, 2017, and paid 7.5 million won in total for 3 times.

(hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the above circles”) of this case. Each of the fraternitys of this case where the Defendant is the owner was unilaterally suspended on June 19, 2017 by the Defendant on the grounds that C did not pay the fraternitys.

Therefore, the defendant has a duty to refund the total sum of the accounts paid to the plaintiff 39,800,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff in accordance with the settlement or unjust enrichment.

2. On the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not pay the fraternity money after joining the fraternity operated by the defendant and receiving the fraternity money, and that the plaintiff was not a member of each fraternity of this case.

Therefore, in full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to see that the defendant is C, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff joined the respective fraternity of this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff is based on the premise that the plaintiff is a member of each fraternity of this case.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.14 2017가단230363

-울산지방법원 2020.04.29 2019가단109703

-서울동부지방법원 2014.06.20 2013가단47034

-서울동부지방법원 2019.04.03 2018나2990

-대전지방법원 2015.06.10 2014나13578