(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.08 2018가단247986

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.08 2018가단247986

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From 2011, Defendant B leased the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Underground E (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) and operated the Fdong E store (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and Defendant C is the wife of Defendant B.

The plaintiff (name before the opening of the name: G) served as a principal employee of the restaurant of this case since 2014.

B. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B, under which the Plaintiff acquired the instant restaurant’s business license from Defendant B for KRW 30 million.

(A) The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to Defendant B by July 31, 2017.

C. On July 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the instant commercial building (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with H and the agent of the lessor of the instant commercial building (a contract amounting to KRW 10 million shall be paid in September 30, 2015 at the time of the contract, the remainder of KRW 80 million shall be paid in September 30, 2015) and monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million.

The special contract terms of the instant lease agreement include the contract that is to be deposited by the end of July 2015, and the contract is confirmed by the former lessee, and there is the signature and seal of Defendant B.

On August 1, 2015, after entering into the instant acquisition contract and the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff commenced the instant restaurant operation from around August 1, 2015, but failed to pay the remainder of the lease deposit to H, and renounced the restaurant operation only for about two months.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, part of Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s joint tort Defendant B’s joint tort committed by the Defendants was in arrears in operating the instant restaurant, and thus, it was impossible to refund the amount equivalent to KRW 90 million out of the deposit for lease due to the delay in paying the monthly rent.

Nevertheless, the Defendants conspired with the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.09.11 2020나52038

-수원지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단541747

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합594876

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.13 2015가단124590

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.01.08 2018가단26627