(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.12.04 2019나309793

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) 대구지방법원 2019.12.04 2019나309793

약정금

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified, considering the evidence submitted to the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under the following paragraph (2).

2. The addition;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff left the Dong business of this case, and agreed that the Plaintiff would receive a refund of KRW 95 million, which is the full amount of the Plaintiff’s contribution ( KRW 15 million, which corresponds to KRW 1/2 of the Plaintiff’s cash contribution) from the Defendant, following the Plaintiff’s withdrawal from the Dong business of this case.

Article 4 of the same business contract (Evidence 1) provides that "the expenses and liabilities related to the business after the business contract shall be responsible according to their respective shares regardless of the discontinuance of the business," and the contract for the termination of the business (Evidence 3) shall be settled according to their shares. It is the amount subject to the return of KRW 15 million, which corresponds to the plaintiff's shares of KRW 30 million out of the loan 30 million.

Since the defendant paid 95 million won to the plaintiff in full, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim on the merits.

B. In addition to the circumstances described in the judgment of the court of first instance and the following, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff, while withdrawing from the partnership of this case and receiving the full payment from the Defendant, of the amount borne by the Plaintiff in the partnership of this case, and that the Plaintiff agreed on the settlement of accounts following the withdrawal from the partnership of this case by the Defendant as the Defendant’s sole property.

In addition, since the amount borne by the Plaintiff in the Dong business of this case is cash 80 million won and the loan of this case 30 million won was received in the name of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is liable to the financial institution, and the Plaintiff is liable to the financial institution.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.05.17 2018가단125812

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.01.16 2012가단42485

-서울동부지방법원 2017.02.03 2016가단19122

-수원지방법원 2020.02.04 2018가단558091