(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.06 2019나17613

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 2019.11.06 2019나17613

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a mutual general restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the Defendant, “C” (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) with the content that the Plaintiff would transfer KRW 50 million to the Defendant for payment, provided that “the scope of transfer” includes “the business type that is transferred to the Defendant (Article 1)” (Article 1), “the scope of transfer includes “the acquisition of all the house in the restaurant within the restaurant” (Article 3), “Lene 1:25,00 won (water),” “cate cate lease (materials use condition),” “cate cate cate (materials use condition),” “(Internet succession condition),” “Internet succession condition,” and “Le 110,00 won” as a special agreement. In addition, the Plaintiff stated that there was no additional entry in the contract that “the acquisition of food: KRW 110,000”.

B. On the other hand, on December 19, 2017, the date of the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for purchasing food treatment equipment to be used in the instant restaurant at KRW 3.96 million (per KRW 110,000,000 per month) (hereinafter “instant installment contract”). The Nonparty Co., Ltd. installed food treatment equipment (hereinafter “instant machine”) in the instant restaurant around that time.

C. The Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant by December 29, 2017, and transferred it to the Defendant, and the Defendant commenced business in the instant restaurant from January 2, 2018.

On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of contents that the Plaintiff continued to pay the installment of the instant installment contract due to the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the agreement, even though the Defendant agreed to transfer the name of the instant machine to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff did not pay the installment of the instant machine. However, the Defendant refused to transfer the name of the instant machine by March 5, 2018.

grounds for recognition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2020.11.04 2019나1215

-부산지방법원 2020.12.18 2019나66163

-창원지방법원 2014.10.22 2013가합2603

-서울남부지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나57139

-수원지방법원 2019.02.13 2017나88213