(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.05 2013가단2007

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.05 2013가단2007

점포인도 등

Text

1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) the indication of the attached drawings in the second floor of the C calendar located in Ansan-gu, Ansan-si, B, 1, 2.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract for the operation of a specialized store (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the term of contract from March 22, 2012 to December 31, 2012 with respect to the size of 16 square meters in part (A) inside the ship connected with each point in sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, and 16 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”). The main contents are as stated in the attached contract terms.

B. The Defendant received a correction request from the Plaintiff on September 10, 2012 and September 19, 2012, in violation of the sales obligation after registering the POS system under Article 30(8) of the instant contract.

On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant contract and requested the delivery of the instant store by October 5, 2012, when the Defendant continued to violate its duty despite the aforementioned request for correction.

C. Even after the notice of termination is given, the Defendant continuously occupied and used the instant store, and on December 31, 2013, costs, such as electric charges, core fee, etc. incurred in relation to the instant store as of December 31, 2013 are as stated in the bond and debt details [A]. The amount that the Plaintiff is to pay to the Defendant due to the termination of the instant contract is as indicated in the bond and debt details [A].

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found by the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant store and liability for damages, the instant contract was lawfully terminated by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination due to the Defendant’s violation of Article 30(8) of the instant contract, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, and to compensate the Plaintiff for damages by the Defendant’s failure to deliver the instant store from October 6, 2012 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.

B. Furthermore, the scope of the Defendant’s liability is the amount of damages payable.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.10 2013가단326116

-서울남부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016가단16348

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.27 2013가단177499

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.11.17 2015가단13821

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.05 2016가단124946 (1)