logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.30 2016가단5120840
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 4, 2013, the Defendants entered into a contract with E Co., Ltd. representing D (hereinafter “E”) under which knowledge, information, etc. regarding the establishment and operation of lifelong education centers are provided (hereinafter “branch contract”). From June 10, 2013, the Defendants began to operate the G Lifelong Education Center (hereinafter “instant Education Center”) on the third floor of the Seoul F building from around June 10, 2013.

B. The lifelong education institute, including the instant education institute, entered into a contract with E on the provision of the above knowledge, information, etc. (hereinafter “branch contract”), established and operated a curriculum mainly for the creation class against childcare teachers.

In accordance with Article 27 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 24 of the Act on the Development of Workplace Skills of Workers, a lifelong education center is recognized as a workplace skill development training course by the Human Resources Development Service of Korea, so that the head of a child-care center, which is an employer, can refund the tuition fee paid to the lifelong education center as the workplace skill development training cost, and also can be used as equipment by taking the school as a child-care center, so that the child-care center can take part in the school and take part in the school as the child-care

C. In August 2013, the Plaintiff visited the instant education center to explain the operation of the lifelong education center from Defendant B, with interest in the lifelong education center’s business.

Defendant B heard the small awareness that HH lifelong education personnel is transferred, and around September 2013, Defendant B arranged the Plaintiff to take over it through E, but the contract did not result in the conclusion of the contract.

On January 7, 2014, the Plaintiff listens to the statement of intent to take over the instant education center from Defendant B, and on January 20, 2014, between the Defendants and the education center of this case.

arrow