(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가단9930

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가단9930

임대차보증금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 28, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a business consignment agreement with the Defendant on August 1, 201, 201, with a view to setting the business consignment date at a store located in E E E F-type store (one-year automatic extension in the absence of any particular declaration of intention between the Plaintiff and the Defendant) and the contract period of one year (one-year automatic extension in the absence of any specific declaration of intention between the Plaintiff and the Defendant). ② The Defendant grants the Plaintiff the right to operate in the above store based on the Defendant’s old-age. ② The Defendant grants the Plaintiff the right to operate in the above store. ③ The Defendant is equipped with the entirety of the facilities, and the Plaintiff operates the clothes repair business with the burden of the expenses incurred therein. ④ Upon termination of the contract, the Plaintiff concluded the instant business consignment agreement with the Defendant to promptly return the business consignment, namely, immediate return of the business consignment right, the use of the know-how, and all other facilities related to the instant business consignment agreement.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid 50,000,000 won to the Defendant under the special terms of the instant sales consignment agreement, and the Plaintiff applied 10% of the depreciation costs for the future sales facility costs, and 20% of the depreciation costs for not less than three years and not less than three years. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the above sales facility costs to the Defendant and notified the Defendant that he did not wish to extend the contract period on May 8, 2017 while running the business. On August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the sales facility costs.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 for the sales facility costs.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.08.12 2015나3970

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.26 2013가단10195

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.11.24 2020가단102835

-수원지방법원안산지원 2020.07.22 2019가단77173

-수원지방법원 2020.06.23 2019가단548480