logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.05.29 2017가단73737
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserts as follows. A.

From September 2013 to April 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement on the same business (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with which the Defendant would sell various dried goods, salted fish, and kimchis, and distribute 50% of the sales profits instead of receiving rents, from the place where the Plaintiff would sell the D cafeteria leased and operated by Nonparty C (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. However, during the Dong business of this case, the Defendant embezzled or stolen part of the price for the sale of side kimchi, etc. from the Defendant’s depository, and then wrongfully embezzled the sales profit by settling accounts with the supply price of the goods.

C. Therefore, the Defendant seeks payment of 5,971,000 won (the amount stated in the attached Table) and 10,000 won for mental shock of the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s embezzlement, which had been engaged in the same business for a long time.

2. However, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the defendant on the same business as the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 10, the defendant entered into a commercial building lease agreement with the non-party C on June 9, 2016 with respect to the store of this case and paid the rent. In criminal cases against the defendant, the defendant was subject to a disposition to the effect that " comprehensively considering the relevant evidence, it is difficult to see that the income from the defendant operating the store of this case is a common property of the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no other evidence to recognize it." (No. 2017-type No. 25845 of the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor's Office, No. 2017-type No. 25845 of the Gwangju High Public Prosecutor's Office, No. 2017 High Public Prosecutor's Office).

arrow