logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.19 2015나8341
공사대금 등
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

가. 피고는 2014. 3. 4. 원고와 사이에 계약기간을 그때부터 2016. 3. 3.까지로 정하여 ‘호프챌린지’ 가맹계약을 체결하고(이하 ‘이 사건 가맹계약’이라 한다), 2014. 4. 19. 서울 서초구 B, 1층에 호프챌린지 C점을 개설하였다.

B. Article 16 of the instant franchise agreement provides for interior and equipment, and the total amount of construction cost under the written estimate (hereinafter “instant quotation”) written based on which the said written estimate was KRW 75 million (Additional tax).

The detailed contents are 36 million won in interior interior interior interior interior interior interior, 4 million won in cooking, 2 million won in cooking education, 4 million won in music (basic), 15 million won in kitchen flag, 12 million won in coffee machine, 12 million won in coffee machine, 2 million won in public interest, 3 million won in installing music stuffs, 78 million in total, and 3 million won in public interest. Here, 3 million won in public interest was discounted.

C. From February 20, 2014 to April 15, 2014, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 80,100,000 to the Plaintiff.

Specific details were KRW 3 million on February 20, 2014, KRW 20 million on March 10, 2014, KRW 1.5 million on March 12, 2014, KRW 500,000 on March 13, 2014, KRW 15 million on March 17, 2014, KRW 5 million on March 21, 2014, KRW 500,000 on March 26, 2014, KRW 9.5 million on March 26, 2014, KRW 20 million on April 11, 2014, KRW 600,00 on April 15, 2014, and KRW 500,000 on April 15, 2014.

피고는 원고에게 호프챌린지 C점을 개설한 2014. 4. 19. 이후 물류대금으로 2014. 5. 2. 300만 원, 2014. 5. 23. 10만 원, 2014. 5. 27. 20만 원, 2014. 6. 2. 50만 원, 총 380만 원을 지급하였다.

E. On July 22, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant franchise agreement may be terminated upon the commencement of compulsory execution procedures against the Plaintiff under Article 35(2)1 of the instant franchise agreement.

[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 7, 10, Eul's evidence 1, 4, 5, and 8, and the ground for the plaintiff's claim as a whole. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim has not been made in relation to the franchise agreement of this case.

arrow