logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원(전주) 2016.02.04 2014나2407
건물명도
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant transfers each bond listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 16, together with the purport of the entire pleadings:

1) The Plaintiff was engaged in credit business with the trade name “N” from September 30, 2004 to December 31, 2008. The Defendant, from the Jeonju-si on December 15, 2004, is a co-owned property, a wedding hall in Jeonjin-gu, Jeonjin-gu, Seoul, and a wedding hall, a neighborhood living facility 1,517.07 square meters (hereinafter “the instant wedding hall”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant frequently lent money in the name of the business operation fund necessary for the Defendant from June 27, 2006 to July 5, 2011 to the company established for the purpose of running the wedding business and the beauty art business, etc. under the trade name of “B.” The Plaintiff and the Defendant continued to make a continuous monetary transaction in the form of repayment to the Plaintiff from July 18, 2006 to November 24, 2012.

3) On April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff’s beauty room in the instant wedding hall “C” (hereinafter “instant beauty room”).

(4) On June 20, 201, when paying KRW 150,000 as the contract deposit for the cosmetic, the Defendant entered into a commission consignment contract with the effect that the 30% of the monthly sales amount generated by operating the cosmetic room was to be settled every month from September 1, 2008. However, it appears that the Plaintiff and the Defendant formally entered into a commission consignment contract with the Defendant that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the contract deposit, and that the monthly sales amount generated after the Plaintiff’s operation is to be settled with the Defendant. (4) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the following, prepared a commission consignment contract with the Defendant: (a) on June 20, 201, written a letter of debt repayment (hereinafter “instant letter of debt repayment”) with the following content; (b) limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”); and (c) the Defendant, the representative director of the E Defendant’s P, actually operated

FD . on February 12, 2007, Lestop, dein, etc.

arrow