(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.05 2016가단5272949

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.05 2016가단5272949

권리금반환 청구의 소

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs and the defendant's part of the grounds for appeal are as shown in the separate sheet of the plaintiffs' assertion.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the agreement on the receipt of premium is null and void in Company D (hereinafter “D”) prohibits the receipt of premium in relation to the sales agency shop is not disputed between the parties, and according to the written evidence No. 5, it is acknowledged that Plaintiff B and Defendant submitted a letter to confirm that the contract is null and void when an unfair transaction or violation is conducted.

However, it is difficult to see that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant, not D, is null and void on the ground that D prohibits the receipt of premium as above, and, in full view of the fact that subparagraph 5, it is reasonable to presume that the plaintiffs and the defendant submitted it in order to conceal the fact of receiving premium with respect to D which prohibits the receipt of premium, it is difficult to see that the agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant on receiving premium was null and void, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the amount of premium claim for F department stores D stores is KRW 62,50,000,000,000, which was agreed with the Defendant, includes the premium for F department stores and fixed store stores that the Defendant did not transfer, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs are obligated to return 1/2 of the above premium to the Plaintiffs.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the above premium is about E building stores, and the F department store's high-end store is recognized that the defendant decided to transfer it without premium, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiffs' assertion.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.09.14 2019가단5223542

-대법원 2011. 1. 27. 선고 2010다85164 판결

-서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2016나2077613

-서울서부지방법원 2016.01.29 2014고단1254

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.09 2019고단8277