(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단216283

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) 부산지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단216283

정산금

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses on May 14, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) taken over a cosmetic room located in Busan Shipping Daegu 30% of the Plaintiff’s shares; (b) operated by the Defendant with 70% shares; (c) distributed net profits each month after the settlement of accounts; (d) if the sale of a cosmetic room is made with the consent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the agreement on the same business may be terminated; and (e) if the cosmetic room is sold to a third party, the agreement on the same business was concluded with the agreement of the Plaintiff and the Defendant to settle the sales amount according to the above ratio of shares (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, including KRW 30 million on August 13, 2013, and KRW 27 million on August 28, 2018.

C. On April 2014, the beauty art room of this case was sold to a third party at KRW 60 million.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff that no loss would occur due to the beauty room business at the time of the instant agreement, thereby cancelling the instant agreement on the ground of fraud.

B. The evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission alone is difficult to acknowledge the Defendant’s deception, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit without further examination.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the settlement amount, since the union's dissolution was terminated upon the sale to a third party, or the contract for the same business was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case. At the time of the contract of this case, the defendant agreed that the part of the loss to the plaintiff should be borne by the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff is required to pay 30 million won investment to the defendant.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.11.11 2019가단246701

-창원지방법원 밀양지원 2019.01.31 2018고정110

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.26 2018가단201862

-인천지방법원 2020.06.05 2018나68967

-서울고등법원 2017.11.21 2017노2484