(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.10.16 2019나51447

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) 인천지방법원 2019.10.16 2019나51447

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to jointly operate the restaurant located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), set up a lease deposit for the instant restaurant, and completed a tegrative construction for the operation of the restaurant. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant commenced the instant restaurant’s business.

B. Accordingly, while the plaintiff jointly operated the restaurant of this case, the plaintiff expressed his intention to withdraw from the above joint operation to the defendant, and the defendant operated the restaurant of this case solely from November 22, 2009.

C. Meanwhile, on November 22, 2009, the Defendant paid KRW 5,530,000 to the Plaintiff on which the instant restaurant was operated independently as above.

After that, the Defendant, who operated the instant restaurant alone, has further remodeled the interior of the instant restaurant, but closed the instant restaurant on or around June 30, 2015 on the grounds of business deterioration, and thereafter, operated the restaurant by changing the type of business from July 16, 2015 to the trade name of “E”.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's 1, 3 through 5, Eul's 1 through 5, witness F's testimony, witness G's partial testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff and the Defendant constituted an association for the operation of the instant restaurant by making mutual investments, and on June 30, 2015, the instant restaurant was closed, and the association of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was dissolved around the said time.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to distribute the corresponding remaining property to the plaintiff in proportion to the amount of the investment [the amount of KRW 60,000,000 for restaurant premium of KRW 35,000,000 for restaurant premium of KRW 25,000 for restaurant premium of KRW 35,000: the lease deposit invested by the defendant] of the remaining property related to the operation of the restaurant of this case.

The plaintiff withdraws his claim for the return of the agreed amount claimed in the first instance court from this court.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.12.18 2013가단33987

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.23 2018가단15912

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.10 2015가단25011

-광주지방법원 2019.05.10 2018나62705

-부산지방법원 2017.09.13 2016가합51661