(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2018가단112991

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.01.16 2018가단112991

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 16, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the transfer of facilities with respect to Pyeongtaek-si C and D operated by the Defendant, and paid KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant as premium.

(b) In respect of paragraph (4) of the special agreement:

4. If the lessor becomes aware of the contract or becomes aware of the permission with the inside floor, this contract shall be null and void without any condition.

C. The Plaintiff, a lessor, entered into a lease agreement with E and F and was engaged in business. On February 28, 2018, the Plaintiff was issued a corrective order for restoration to the original state and corrective order on the ground that the Plaintiff illegally constructed the multi-storys without reporting thereon from the head of Pyeongtaek-si.

The part of the double floor is now removed in August 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the terms and conditions of the contract on the Plaintiff’s assertion mean that the contract should be null and void in cases where a disposition to restore the original state to the original state is taken by an administrative agency. Since the contract becomes null and void due to an administrative agency’s disposition to restore to the original state, the Defendant must return KRW 80,000,000, which was obtained without any legal cause. 2) The meaning of the Defendant’

If the transfer is made, the contract shall not be null and void at any time.

B. It is recognized that the contract is written to invalidate if the permission is known to the inner dunes of the judgment.

However, its meaning is ambiguous like the claims of the parties.

Considering the content, nature, circumstances, etc. of the instant contract, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement to invalidate a contract in any case where a disposition to restore the original state to the original state at any time on the second floor only with the evidence as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2015.06.26 2014구단7025

-대구지방법원 2017.03.02 2016가단115576

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.14 2018고정971

-서울북부지방법원 2016.01.20 2014가합23847

-대구지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단110307