(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.08 2017가단72412

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.08 2017가단72412

약정금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40 million and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 13, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the following agreements (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) with respect to the joint business that operates “B 4th floor in Yangju-si (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as reading room:

Section 2(1) A (referring to the defendant in this case) provides for the lease of interior (including air conditioners) and buildings necessary for the operation of the reading room to the above real estate. 2) B (referring to the plaintiff in this case) pays 40 million won to A for management expenses and deposit money for the suspension of the operation of a driving school.

The payment of the price shall be 20 million won of the down payment.

7.29.Payment;

8. The remainder of 20 million won shall be paid up to 20.20.

3) The right to lease and facilities shall be A, and B pays 18% of the sales amount to A with facility usage fees. Pursuant to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million on July 29, 2015, KRW 15 million on August 20, 2015, and KRW 5 million on August 31, 2015, respectively. However, despite the Plaintiff’s demand for the Human Rights Corporation, the Defendant did not commence the Human Rights Corporation on the instant real estate, and on November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document-proof mail verifying that the instant agreement will be terminated by the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duty under the instant agreement and the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant agreement. [In accordance with the instant agreement, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the Plaintiff’s real estate operation to the Plaintiff, as necessary, according to the instant agreement.

However, since the plaintiff did not perform his duty despite the plaintiff's demand, the agreement of this case was lawfully terminated when the plaintiff's declaration of the termination that was made due to the defendant's default reaches the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff as the restoration upon the termination of the contract of this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.12.08 2015가단37118

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.02.08 2017가단79888

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.12.08 2015가단9557

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.04.27 2016가단10745

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.04.27 2016가단14105