(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가단12682

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) 광주지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가단12682

투자금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,500,000 as well as annual 5% from April 23, 2016 to October 5, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C agreed to jointly operate the collection of frequencies on the first floor of the D Building in Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) (hereinafter “instant East Business Agreement”) and jointly operated the frequency as “E” from May 10, 2015.

B. The Defendant had already been operating a restaurant in the name of “H” in the name of “H” by leasing KRW 30,000,000 from “C” in the name of “C” before the instant partnership agreement. The Plaintiff invested KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 30,000,000 in each of the investment of “C”, and completed the interior construction of the instant building, and purchased the kitchen equipment.

C. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease contract again with the amount of KRW 30,000,000 (in the contract, the amount of KRW 45,000 is stated as KRW 45,00,00 in the contract, but the amount at the last time is stated as the period of increase, and the actual lease deposit is KRW 30,00,00 in the actual lease deposit), monthly rent 2,90,000 (value-added tax separate), and the lease period of KRW 24 months.

The Plaintiff, Defendant, and C set the ratio of profit distribution in the instant trade agreement as 3:4:3.

E. C received a loan from the credit union under the name of the Defendant or the Defendant’s wife, and transferred its shares on the instant trade agreement to the Defendant, and withdrawn from the partnership.

F. On November 1, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to maintain the partnership relationship only until the end of December 2015, and the Plaintiff did not participate in the frequency collection operation from January 1, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Although the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s investment bond, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s each statement of evidence Nos. 3 through 6 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가합56963

-창원지방법원통영지원 2016.11.24 2016가단21970

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.10.12 2016가단15252

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.10 2018가단110044

-제주지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단17066