(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가합1219

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가합1219

선급금

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim based on the agreement on the return of the goods shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall make 32,000 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant received KRW 125,00,000 from the Plaintiff from the Home P store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as a request for the purchase of home appliances at the Home P store, and kept them in custody, and then embezzled KRW 41,50,000 out of the above money by using the personal debt repayment, etc. at will, and (2) around July 9, 2015, the Defendant concluded that the Plaintiff would purchase the advance payment to the Plaintiff in advance, and that the Defendant’s husband would purchase the advance payment in advance, or that the Defendant’s husband would receive KRW 290,500,000 from the Plaintiff seven times from that time until July 16, 2015.

B. On July 23, 2015, the Defendant drafted a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”) with the following content to the Plaintiff.

The total amount of cash custody certificate: KRW 40,000,000 for non-entry in the goods of KRW 292,000: 332,00,000: To make sure that the above amount is received (storage) on July 16, 2015, this certificate shall be prepared and signed and sealed.

The reason for storage: The above amount shall be kept and settled for the purpose of settling the purchase price, and shall be returned at the request of the custodian (Plaintiff).

C. On the other hand, the Plaintiff prepared to the Defendant each of the following descriptions (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”) on the same day:

I undertake not to institute a civil or criminal lawsuit (based on a cash custody certificate drawn up on July 23, 2015).

Facts that the custodian’s name A is without dispute on July 23, 2015 (based on recognition), Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim based on an agreement on the return of the price of goods

A. The Defendant’s assertion on the main defense and judgment on the main defense of this case) was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to bring an action due to the cash storage certificate of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff sought the return of the goods to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2014.05.22 2013가합7231

-인천지방법원 2016.01.12 2015나55007

-부산지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가합1489

-수원지방법원 2018.01.12 2016가단40114

-인천지방법원 2020.01.07 2019고단3934