logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.05.28 2013가합203495
투자금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 82,449,146 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 1, 2013 to May 28, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to jointly operate a franchise restaurant (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

B. On April 24, 2012, the Defendant: (a) leased a short-term car driving unit Co., Ltd. and Seoul Gangnam-gu, Gangnam-gu (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and (b) concluded a franchise franchise agreement with the contents of opening and operating the instant restaurant, which is a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

C. From April 24, 2012 to May 11, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 115,000,000 to the Defendant an investment under the instant trade agreement. The instant restaurant began from May 30, 2012.

Around May 2012, the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from a liquor supplier and decided to pay KRW 2,500,000 each month in 20 months. Accordingly, E, the husband of the Plaintiff, guaranteed the above borrowed debt.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around December 30, 2012, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the partnership relationship under the instant partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant partnership”); and (b) the Defendant is obligated to return the investment amount to the Plaintiff; (c) around December 30, 2012, around 246,70,000 won (=246,70,000 won x 50%) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share among the economic value of the instant association around December 30, 2012, and KRW 18,350,000 (=3,000,0000 x 6 months) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s wage for six months (i.e., KRW 123,350,000) and delay damages.

3. Determination on the claim for the settlement of accounts due to the plaintiff's withdrawal

A. The Plaintiff’s withdrawal and the partnership business relationship consisting of two parties, i.e., the partnership relationship where one of them withdraws.

arrow