logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.10.18 2018가합104486
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 187,450,843 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from November 9, 2018 to October 18, 2019.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. From December 2014, the Plaintiff, in collaboration with the Defendant Company, carried on a business that supplies home shopping companies with mobile phone rent (hereinafter “instant business”) and intended to divide the profits into 85:15.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff performed the instant business and paid 15% out of the profits of the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company’s exclusive use of the profits of the instant business was terminated on September 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 243,307,00 out of KRW 234,307,143, excluding the profits already paid to the Plaintiff and the profits already paid to the Plaintiff from the instant business, and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant Company 1) directly operated the instant business from December 2014 to November 2015, the Plaintiff was in charge of the instant business, and thereafter, the employee of the Defendant Company. As such, the Defendant Company is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the settlement prohibition amount. 2) Even if the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the settlement prohibition amount against the Plaintiff is acknowledged, the sales proceeds should be deducted since the Defendant Company purchased the goods equivalent to KRW 10,400,00 in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) around September 2017, and the Plaintiff sold the said goods in the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), and the Plaintiff should deduct KRW 43,042,00 from the inventory value held by the Plaintiff. 3) The amount of the corporate card used by the Defendant Company during the instant business should be deducted from the amount of KRW 30,00,000.

In addition, Defendant Company lent KRW 40,000,00 to the Plaintiff around February 21, 2017, and thus, Defendant Company’s above loan claims against the Plaintiff should be offset.

2. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a partnership relationship

(a)The purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, 6, 15 to 18, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and 5 to 36 (including each number);

arrow