(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.12.04 2019나57414

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 2019.12.04 2019나57414

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is a person who sells and leases office equipment, and the defendant is the head of a child-care center.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to an influor (hereinafter “instant influor”) and installed the instant influor in the Defendant’s child care center.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s lease agreement terminated on June 2018, and the Plaintiff recovered the instant franchise, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the sum of KRW 180,000,000 for penalty for breach of contract and the cost of damage exchange pursuant to the lease agreement.

On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order with the purport that “the obligor shall pay to the obligee the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment” against the Defendant on July 3, 2018 (Seoul District Court Decision 2018Da17192), and on July 9, 2018, the Plaintiff issued a payment order with the purport that “the obligor shall pay to the obligee the amount as stated in the separate claim: the obligor shall pay to the obligee the amount as stated in the separate claim; the expenses for demand procedure in the separate sheet shall be borne by the obligor; and the expenses for demand procedure in the separate sheet shall be KRW 54,900.

E. On July 21, 2018, the Defendant raised an objection against the above payment order, and transferred KRW 180,000 to the Plaintiff on July 23, 2018.

F. The court of first instance dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on March 26, 2019.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

The judgment was pronounced.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination ex officio on the legitimacy of the appeal

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s appeal is that the Defendant deposited the claim amount of the payment order, but the demand expenses were not paid, and the Plaintiff was formal trial due to the Defendant’s objection to the payment order.

In light of this process, the court of first instance shall bear the costs of the lawsuit even though the costs of the lawsuit are borne by the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.01.29 2018가단10769

-수원고등법원 2020.09.17 2019나21923

-대구지방법원 2018.12.13 2018가단106415

-수원지방법원 2019.09.25 2018나92639

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.03 2014가단58231