(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.28 2018가합8076

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.28 2018가합8076

이행보증예치금 등 지급 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from July 1, 2016 to January 3, 2019.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

A. On November 5, 2015, the Defendant concluded a business agreement with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the name of D Co., Ltd.) and D to construct officetels in accordance with the instant project, as the executor of the business of constructing and selling officetels on the ground of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and four parcels (hereinafter “instant business”).

According to the above business agreement, the right to select a sales agent of the said new officetel was to have the defendant.

B. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant, who is authorized to sell the instant project, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on vicarious purchase of the instant officetel units [the scale of vicarious sale: 752 rooms of officetels (1,800,000 won per unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit unit (296,000,000 won)]. On the same day, the Defendant entered into a special agreement with the following contents:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”), together with the provisional contract and special agreement for the sale of goods by proxy;

2. The Plaintiff shall deposit money KRW 150,000,000 ( KRW 150,000) with the Defendant as a performance bond for sale by proxy in relation to the contract at issue.

3. The Defendant’s refund of the performance guarantee provided by the Plaintiff shall be until June 30, 2016.

4. The defendant shall be selected as a sales agent of the project. If the plaintiff fails to participate in the sale agent of the project or the project is not performed smoothly due to the defendant's circumstances, it seems that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the fact that the defendant pays 100% of the performance bond as the refund of the performance bond and penalty that the plaintiff paid to the defendant, as the penalty, in the case of the payment of the performance bond under Article 2 of the contract of this case which the plaintiff provided to the plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff shall enter into the instant agreement.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.08.30 2018가단532814

-서울고등법원 2018.02.06 2017나2005653

-부산지방법원 2015.05.08 2014나10172

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.04.24 2017가단22697

-부산지방법원 2019.04.25 2018가단304249