(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나18754

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) 대구지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나18754

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. On April 11, 201, the fact that D, which was the former representative director of the Defendant Company, prepared a performance note as follows in the name of the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under the name of the Defendant Company, is either a dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized according to the evidence No. 2, which is written by the Plaintiff.

1. In the process of the solar power generation business, the Plaintiff shall endeavor to make every effort to resolve the permit and all civil petitions before and after the completion of the construction in advance.

2. The plaintiff shall not divulge all the secrets of the company and all the activities occurring in the company.

3. In the event that the Plaintiff committed an act giving rise to ownership in the company, he/she shall be held responsible and shall leave the company without any condition.

4. The plaintiff faithfully implements the above provision, and the defendant company recognized that it contributed to the plaintiff and presented the following conditions.

1) It shall transfer to the Plaintiff the share of 5 per cent of the initial license completion and the power generation volume after the completion of the power plant (not the company’s shares or property) provided that (RPS) power plant currently in progress is not completed for any reason, the above-mentioned condition shall be null and void.

2. Assertion and determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff Company sold electricity after completing the construction of solar power plant on or around January 2014. As such, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to 5% of the power generation amount pursuant to the instant agreement. 2) The instant agreement was decided to invalidate if the Defendant Company did not succeed in the business of the RPS power plant that was in progress in 2011. Since there was no business in progress, the Defendant Company is not obligated to perform the instant agreement.

Moreover, the Plaintiff did not assist in the solar power generation business of the Defendant Company and only interfered with it. As such, the Plaintiff violated Paragraph (1) of this case’s agreement.

B. Determination Doctrine, Gap 4-.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.11.10 2014가단9630

-춘천지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단50034

-의정부지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가합51276

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.12.11 2018가단73659