(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단5135968

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 2016.04.26 2015가단5135968

정산금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 8,849,905 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 19, 2016 to April 26, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, who was the Defendant’s deceptive act, has the respective shares of Plaintiff 35%, E 30%, and Defendant 35%, from around 2003, in operating the DPC “DPC” room (hereinafter “the instant PC bank”). Since around 2007, the Plaintiff purchased 30% of E’s shares and finally held 65% of the Plaintiff and 35% of the Defendant’s shares.

(hereinafter “instant trade relationship”). Proceeds from the instant PC was managed by the Plaintiff.

B. In order to operate the instant PC, a lease agreement was concluded with a lessor to pay KRW 4,928,000 per month by adding monthly rent of KRW 3,810,000 to monthly rent of KRW 120,000 and other incidental expenses (monthly rent of KRW 4,928,00 per month).

(2) On July 14, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) lent the instant PC to F; and (b) concluded a sublease contract (hereinafter “instant sublease contract”); and (c) the details of the sublease contract are as follows: “The rent of KRW 6,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,81,000, monthly rent of KRW 4,81,000, and the sublease period from August 1, 2007 to January 31, 2009; and (d) the lessee shall pay the monthly rent and rent to the sublease (Plaintiff).”

C. The PC bank of this case started on January 1, 2003, and closed on May 13, 2010.

Since then, the defendant changed the type of business to the party branch around 201 and terminated the relationship of the Dong branch of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is subject to settlement of KRW 65%, 78,000,000,000 for the security deposit for the instant PC, which is the property at the time of termination of the relationship of the instant trade.

B. The defendant's assertion (Counterclaim Claim) (1) The plaintiff claiming the dismissal of the lawsuit shall be dismissed on the ground that the defendant did not have any operation of the party headquarters with the defendant, and the plaintiff has no standing to pay the settlement amount to the plaintiff.

(2) This case’s claim for extinctive prescription is below the PC deposit.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.03.25 2014가단53152

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.28 2017가단241539

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가합565823

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.03.23 2019가단5072287