(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.28 2018나81594

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 2020.05.28 2018나81594

부당이득금반환

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the owner of the instant real estate, other than Overcheon-si C, and four lots and its ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), and D and E occupy the instant real estate from May 14, 2013 to August 2016, and operated a restaurant at that place.

B. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against E seeking the delivery of the instant real estate and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, and on November 27, 2013, the judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 2013, that “E delivers the instant real estate to the Defendant, and pays the amount at the rate of KRW 6,600,000 per month from October 16, 2013 to the completion date of the delivery.”

(Y) On December 20, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the same content against D on December 20, 2014, but withdrawn the lawsuit on May 14, 2015.

(C) On June 18, 2015, D and E issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as of December 31, 2015, with a view to securing the payment of the rent equivalent to the period of possession of the instant real estate, at par value 464,000,000, and due date, as of December 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant promissory note”) to secure the Defendant’s payment of the rent equivalent to the said rent during the period of possession of the instant real estate, a notary public prepared and executed a notary deed stating the intention of recognition of compulsory execution as of December 2015, 2015.

C. On the other hand, on May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with D to jointly operate a restaurant and paid KRW 50 million to D, but filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages on the grounds that D and E acquired investment funds from D and E while terminating the agreement. In the appellate court of the lawsuit, a decision of recommending settlement was rendered on June 22, 2016, stating that “D and E jointly and severally pay KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff within one month from the date the decision became final and conclusive.”

(Seoul High Court 2015Na30239). D.

The defendant shall pay the above promissory note.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.11.05 2015나22455

-수원지방법원 2017.04.27 2017나1254

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.07 2014나28236

-춘천지방법원 2019.11.20 2017나1244

-서울동부지방법원 2018.12.06 2017가합101230