logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.11.22 2015나2064443
정산금반환 청구의 소
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 103,951,157, and KRW 69,300,771 respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On May 2013, the Plaintiffs entered into a partnership agreement with the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, etc. (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”) to operate a restaurant by sharing the amount of money with the Defendant, and then distribute the profits therefrom (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

(2) According to the instant agreement, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 300 million to Nonparty D’s Japanese bank account on June 12, 2013; Plaintiff B transferred KRW 100 million to the said account on June 28, 2013; and KRW 200 million on July 23, 2013.

B. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a franchise agreement with D to operate F (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) on June 5, 2013 under the name of D and the price for KRW 22,5720,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

3) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant completed the business registration of the instant restaurant in the name of D. C. The instant restaurant started from July 31, 2013, when the instant restaurant was operated and the Defendant’s lease contract was terminated, etc.

At the time of commencement of the business, G, delegated by Plaintiff A, operated the instant restaurant.

2) On June 1, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received from G the instant restaurant from G to operate the instant restaurant from that time; (b) around March 20, 2015, the Defendant terminated the lease agreement on the instant restaurant; and (c) received KRW 242,552,700, which deducts the overdue rent of KRW 300,000 from the School Foundation Foundation Foundation’s University, from the account in the name of D.

Since then, the Defendant closed the instant restaurant.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence A, Evidence A, and Eul.

arrow