(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.23 2014가단5310731

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 2015.12.23 2014가단5310731

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff jointly run the Defendant’s dental clinic located in Seoul and Dental clinic (hereinafter “instant dental clinic”) and paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant on July 18, 2013 as the Plaintiff’s investment deposit.

On July 18, 2014, the Defendant agreed to refund KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, according to the agreement, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay from July 19, 2014, which is the day following the above payment date.

2. According to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2, on July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant with the operating fund for the instant dental license. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who are joint operators of the instant dental license, returned KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on July 18, 2014, and the Plaintiff agreed to leave the instant dental license.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as to evidence Nos. 1 and 1 through 7, the Plaintiff agreed to waive the right to claim the return of the above KRW 40 million when the Plaintiff, at the time of the agreement on August 12, 2013, failed to perform his/her obligation to maintain the name of the medical institution founder of the instant dental institution. However, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his/her obligation to return the above KRW 40 million to the Defendant.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty to maintain the name of the medical institution founder on the sole basis of Gap evidence No. 3.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

① The Plaintiff, upon running the instant dental surgery with the Defendant, paid KRW 40 million operating capital to the Defendant. The Plaintiff reported both the name and business registration name of the founder of the instant dental institution as the Plaintiff.

② On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff is the Defendant and the Defendant, who are joint operators of the instant dental services.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.22 2018나44748

-창원지방법원 2021.01.13 2020구단11429

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017고단6690

-인천지방법원 2017.09.07 2017고단2162