logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가합53941
위탁운영비
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant operates a farm in Pocheon-si C (hereinafter “instant C farm”) and a farm in Pocheon-si D, etc. (hereinafter “instant D farm”) with a company engaging in the joint raising and selling of pigs.

B. The Plaintiff operated the instant D farm from the end of 1996 to 2000, transferred its ownership to E-agricultural partnership, a telegraph of the Defendant company, and was engaged in duties as a farm management director from the said D farm until April 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 6 through 8, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remuneration for entrusted operation 246,00,000 won [=2,000 won per month x 123 months (from January 18, 2006 to April 18, 2016)] and damages for delay, inasmuch as the Defendant did not pay the entrusted operation remuneration and incentives agreed on the ground that the company’s management conditions have deteriorated, etc., even though the Plaintiff entered into an entrusted operation contract with the Defendant on or around January 18, 2006 on the instant C farm and performed duties under the entrusted operation contract from that time to April 18, 2016.

3. In light of the following facts and circumstances, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was performing entrusted duties under the entrusted operation contract for the instant farm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was performing entrusted duties under the entrusted operation contract for the instant farm.

Rather, according to the above facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the Plaintiff appears to have aided part of the external duties of the instant C farm as the management director of the instant D farm, and the Defendant Company appears to have separately managed the instant C farm as a manager and directly managing it.

arrow