(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나3182 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.01.17 2016나3182

손해배상(기)

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 filed a claim against the Defendant for compensation for damages of KRW 15 million in trade advance and refund of KRW 5 million in relation to the establishment of a corporation, respectively. The first instance court accepted the remainder of the claim for compensation, excluding partial damages for delay, and dismissed the claim for damages.

Since the defendant appealed only, the scope of the court's trial is limited to the claim for the return of the above deposit.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation regarding the instant case is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s explanation on the instant case by the court of first instance, i.e., the 3rd 3rd 3rd 10-11 class “201. Dec. 8, 201”; and (b) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the Defendant in this court, are the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (c) thus, it is acceptable

3. Additional determination

A. The defendant's assertion was that the plaintiff failed to provide the defendant with an import contract under the name of the newly incorporated company due to his previous causes, and the defendant was unable to issue a letter of credit due to such violation of the plaintiff's duty of preferential performance, so the deposit amount of five million won paid by the plaintiff to the defendant shall be attributed to the defendant in accordance with the purport of the investment

B. The fact that the Plaintiff was unable to provide the Defendant with the import contract under the name of the newly incorporated company, and that the instant investment contract contains the content that “where the Defendant was unable to issue a credit, the Defendant returned the deposit to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant would confiscate the deposit where the Plaintiff did not import the amount of the credit.”

In addition, the content of the above investment contract appears to the purport that the other party has the right to receive the deposit if the original defendant fails to perform his/her contractual duties in his/her business area.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.05.17 2014가단25262

-서울남부지방법원 2018.07.20 2017나61087

-대법원 2018.07.26 2017다234019

-광주지방법원 장흥지원 2018.05.30 2018가단5240

-대법원 1980. 4. 8. 선고 80다208 판결