(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.30 2016가단10867

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) 전주지방법원 2018.05.30 2016가단10867

투자금반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 35,00,000, and 5% per annum from May 24, 2016 to May 30, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From around February 2015, the Defendant: (a) from around 2003 to D 2, operated the “Ecar Pat” (hereinafter “instant coffee shop”); (b) made it necessary to organize the instant coffee shop in order to leave the country abroad; and (c) made proposals to Plaintiff B or G, and Plaintiff A’s spouse, working in F, to be deemed to operate the instant coffee shop; and (d) around March 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs, who came to know of it through G and H, determined the amount of investment to be borne by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant between the Defendant and the Defendant, as KRW 35 million, and concluded the same business agreement (hereinafter “instant business agreement”).

Article 1 (Investment Obligations) The Plaintiffs and the Defendant jointly invest capital (120 million won) necessary to operate the coffee shop of this case in the same manner by 1/3.

Article 3 (Distribution of Profits) The profits shall be distributed according to the ratio of investment after the settlement of accounts at the end of each month.

Article 7 (Term of Contract) This Agreement shall continue to exist for one year, except in exceptional circumstances, and the contract shall be extended for the same period unless the other party objects to the expiration.

Article 8 (Right to Termination of Contract) The plaintiffs and the defendant may terminate the contract with a prior notice period of three months.

Article 9 (Restoration due to Cancellation and Termination of Contracts) Where a contract is terminated or terminated, the amount of investment shall be promptly returned in cash.

In addition, the defendant changed the name of the tenant to the plaintiffs so that it is not difficult for the plaintiffs to actually operate the coffee shop of this case due to the relation that the name of the tenant of the coffee shop of this case is the defendant to stay overseas, and the defendant would return the contribution if the name of the tenant is not changed.

B. The Plaintiffs paid 35 million won each to the Defendant in accordance with the instant trade agreement, and operated the instant coffee shop from March 6, 2015.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.10.17 2017가단62114

-대전지방법원 2017.07.06 2016나108715

-광주지방법원 2015.11.04 2015고정997

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.09.23 2014가단31250

-광주지방법원 2016.07.19 2016가단511059