(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.22 2019나27221

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 2020.07.22 2019나27221

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. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff claimed the agreed amount (30,000,000 won) and the clothes (11,357,000 won) against the Defendant. The court of first instance rejected only all the claims for the principal of the agreed amount and the clothes, and only part of the damages for delay as to the agreed amount.

In this regard, the defendant only appealed the part of the claim for partial payment of the contract, which is subject to the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for the contract amount.

2. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the defendant adds a judgment on the assertion emphasized or added by the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant is the third floor E of the C market E (hereinafter "third floor store").

(2) The agreement of this case was null and void since the agreement of this case was made on the premise that the plaintiff had only operated the business, and that the plaintiff continued the business of the 3rd floor store. Thus, the agreement of this case was revoked because it constitutes a juristic act by mistake and constitutes a juristic act by mistake. 2) The agreement of this case constitutes a juristic act with the condition that the plaintiff only had the business of the 3rd floor store in competition with C market 2rd floor D (hereinafter “D”). Thus, the agreement of this case was null and void since the plaintiff violated the conditions.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s continuation of business at the 3rd shop as above and the operation of the 1st floor F of C market replacing it (hereinafter “1st floor store”) and the opening of business at the 2nd floor G of C market (hereinafter “new store”) violates the Plaintiff’s duty of prohibition of competitive business by the transferor of business under Article 41 of the Commercial Act. Thus, this constitutes the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation, and thus, the instant agreement is rescinded.

B. We examine the argument on the revocation of the instant agreement based on one mistake.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상법 제41조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나29623

-대법원 1995. 9. 5. 선고 94다30867 판결

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.12.14 2016가단8575

-대구지방법원 2015.01.30 2013가합9431

-대전지방법원 2016.09.02 2015나107302