logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.11.20 2020나12456
채무부존재확인
Text

The appeal by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is dismissed.

According to the counterclaim filed in the trial, the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is the same as stated in Article 420(1) of the judgment of the first instance

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since each fee that the Plaintiff received from the Defendant Company and the Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) is different from the goods related to the subject of payment, the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery against the Plaintiff cannot be the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. On the other hand, considering that the branch activity fee was not paid upon termination, the Plaintiff is not obligated to refund the branch activity fee as it is not the money that was paid upon termination.

In addition, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay fees other than the branch activity fees.

B. Since a claim on the ground of the authentic deed of the Promissory Notes in this case is a claim for recovery against the plaintiff of the non-party company managed by the defendant company, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the principal and delay damages to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the promissory note of this case issued by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is deemed to be aimed at securing the recovery of fees that the Plaintiff sold the goods of the non-party company and received. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

1) In addition to the non-party company, the Defendant concluded a consignment contract with multiple companies, including G, H, I, and H, and had the Defendant’s employees, including the Plaintiff sell the goods of the above company. (2) However, the Plaintiff received the commission for the sale of the goods of the non-party company directly from the non-party company.

arrow