logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.02.03 2020나2033436
수수료등 반환 청구
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

Reasons

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition as follows. Thus, this is acceptable by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Section 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "The contract of this case may be terminated."

Subsequent to the part above, it is reasonable to view it as follows.

The following is added after the part of the first instance judgment of “it is difficult to see that the Defendant may also be exempted from the Defendant’s duty of restoration following the termination of the contract, even if the Defendant’s additional statement Nos. 46-1 and 2 of the evidence No. 46-2 of the Defendant submitted to this Court is not different).”

Article 9(8) of the instant contract provides for the grounds for termination of the instant contract that the Plaintiffs may assert, on the basis of the overall system and composition of each of the instant contracts, such as “shall not demand refund.” Furthermore, Article 7(2) of the instant contract provides for the grounds for termination of the contract, such as “labor or immigration interest, rejection of re-employment confirmation, and special terms and conditions of the contract (in the case of Plaintiffs D, I, and G)” (in the case of Plaintiffs D, I, and G), and Article 8 (Non-Refund Clause) provides for the grounds for cancellation of the contract, such as refusal of labor or immigration approval, submission of false documents, submission of documents, absence of contact, two contact, unpaid fees, etc., and the Plaintiffs’ refusal of the contract and submission of receipts to the Defendant under the general provisions of Article 9(1) to 4(1) of the instant contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da1488(1) of the instant contract).

arrow