(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.23 2018나56839

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 2018.11.23 2018나56839

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant who runs restaurant business in the name of “B” and the Plaintiff under which “the Plaintiff set the period of 36 months and monthly rent of 5,000 won to the Defendant and set up a contract with the Defendant for the lease of POS, wald, JT100, RT100, money box, kid, kid, and Mas, etc. (hereinafter “POS”).

B. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of compensation calculated as follows (hereinafter “instant agreement”) if the Defendant did not pay rent for three months or longer, or did not pay rent due to default, or if the Defendant did not perform a specific agreement at the time of lease and supply.

(Article 7 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the contract). Compensation amount = (1) Value of a product; (2) Value of a product; 396,000 won (POS price: 2,50,000 won). (2) Value of a product ± Period of unused lease ± Period of contract.

C. However, in September 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract, and suspended the use of the POS devices, such as the POS leased from the Plaintiff and used the POS devices, which were leased by another company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s equipment, such as POS, and agreed to pay the rent or the penalty for breach of the contract within the period of 36 months, as stated in the above table, if the Defendant failed to perform the contract, but unilaterally terminated the contract of this case before the lapse of 36 months, and traded with another company. The agreement of this case is a penalty clause that requires the Defendant to pay the penalty to the Plaintiff where the Defendant fails to perform his/her obligation due to his/her own fault, barring special circumstances. Thus, the Defendant is in accordance with

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.11.01 2019나1296

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.03 2016나367

-인천지방법원 2020.09.01 2020나51108

-부산지방법원 2017.09.15 2017나756

-부산지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가단303560