(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.12 2016나16039

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 2016.10.12 2016나16039

수수료금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. On March 26, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, which rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on March 26, 2015, and served the original copy of the judgment to the Defendant by public notice.

Therefore, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to the reason that the defendant could not be held liable because he was unaware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence.

I would like to say.

According to the records, the defendant was issued an authentic copy of the judgment on March 4, 2016 and the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered.

The appeal filed by the defendant on March 7, 2016, which was within 14 days from the above, is lawful as satisfying the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 13, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for commission of a financial designer, and agreed to pay the fees in accordance with the Plaintiff’s “Rules on Transfer Fee”.

B. At the time, the Plaintiff’s provision on the Plaintiff’s royalty transfer fee (the first month) is that education and training fees shall be paid according to the results of the conversion into a new contract (the first month) and the royalty shall be paid according to the results of conversion after the evaluation for six months from the next month of commission, and the royalty shall be paid. The Plaintiff’s royalty transfer fee and training fee and royalty shall be recovered in full within one year after commission.

C. On December 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1 million to the Defendant for education and training expenses, KRW 1,755,00,000 for the royalty increase in February 2014, and KRW 300,000 for the royalty increase in March 2014, respectively.

On June 9, 2014, the defendant voluntarily terminated the commissioning contract with the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of whole pleadings

3. According to the above facts of recognition, since the defendant retired within one year after commission, the defendant is already paid education and training expenses to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.02 2016가단11644

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단5066762

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.21 2016가단139764

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016나45457

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.13 2020나52278