(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.10.24 2017가단210220

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2017.10.24 2017가단210220

권리금 반환청구

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 130,000.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased part of the 2,3, and 4th floor (hereinafter “instant store”) of the building located in the Busan East-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do, to KRW 50 million and KRW 1,500,000 per month of rent, and operated the car page “E”.

B. On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant store’s goodwill of KRW 230 million to the Defendant; and (b) the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 28 million on the date of the contract to the remainder on June 30, 2017; and (c) to pay the amount of the down payment as compensation if the Defendant breached the contract.

(C) On April 21, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 28 million to the Defendant as the down payment, and KRW 72 million as the intermediate payment on April 24, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not take any measures to succeed to the lease agreement, even though the Plaintiff agreed to arrange for the succession of the lease agreement entered into with the lessor C at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, so the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the instant contract due to the Defendant’s nonperformance. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to restore the Plaintiff to its original state, return the sum of KRW 100 million in total the down payment and the intermediate payment, and pay KRW 28 million, which is the amount equivalent to the down payment due to the nonperformance of the obligation to compensate the Plaintiff for damages. (2) The Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff that the new lessee obtained C’s consent or permission, even though the new lessee did not have obtained the consent or permission with respect to the succession

The plaintiff shall cancel the contract of this case on the ground that it is an expression of intent by mistake or deception.

Therefore, the defendant shall restore the contract deposit and intermediate payment to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.08.24 2015나6205

-서울북부지방법원 2017.09.05 2017나269

-대구지방법원 2019.09.04 2018나310420

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.16 2014가합24124

-제주지방법원 2018.11.22 2018나138