logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2019.06.20 2018나8678
보증금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff as to the defendant B, which constitutes the following amount of payment order:

Reasons

1. The reasons for this decision are as follows: (a) Defendant C and the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with Defendant C and the Plaintiff to lease the instant commercial building from April 27, 2012 to April 26, 2015; and (b) Defendant C had to operate a marina business establishment on or around March 2012; and (c) stated in the 8 to 9 of the first instance judgment on or around September 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (d) stated in the 8 to 9 of the first instance judgment on or around September 2014 in the 1.4,40,000 won in monthly rent, lease deposit, and lease deposit from April 27, 2012 to April 26, 2015; and (e) changed the lease deposit from the Plaintiff to April 26, 2015 to the 50,000,000 won in lieu of the main sentence of Article 28(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) When the Plaintiff opens a marina business in the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff agreed to receive monthly revenues from Defendant C instead of paying KRW 50 million for lease deposit and KRW 63.5 million for the interior of the instant commercial building. As such, Defendant C was the actual right holder who bears the Plaintiff’s opening cost of the instant marina business without the Plaintiff’s consent, but Defendant C acquired the instant marina business without the Plaintiff’s consent after transferring the instant marina business to a third party for KRW 130 million. As such, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 130 million for compensation for damages caused by tort or return of unjust enrichment. Even if the agreement in this case is deemed to constitute an anonymous association agreement, as otherwise alleged by the Defendants, Defendant C is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s value of the investment following the termination of the instant agreement pursuant to Article 85 of the Commercial Act.

B. Defendant B.

arrow