(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.07.17 2017나1513

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) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.07.17 2017나1513

투자금반환

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The conclusion and preparation of the instant agreement 1) Plaintiff (C) (Operation), Defendant (Operation of D), E (Operation of “F), and G (Operation of “H”; hereinafter the Plaintiff, Defendant, E, and G together with the Plaintiff, Defendant, and G

() Around September 10, 2016, the agreement that “four persons shall operate a call center jointly with each other by investing KRW 10,000,000,000, and secure a certain number of proxy drivers, respectively, and jointly operate an agency with I from October 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on September 21, 2016 in accordance with the instant agreement.

3) In accordance with the instant agreement, from September 29, 2016 to October 7, 2016, the Defendant is an office to jointly operate the I-ground building as a proxy driver (hereinafter “instant office”).

(B) On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff, etc. verified the number of substitute drivers secured for the implementation of the instant agreement, including the amount of KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,00, and the amount of KRW 20,000,00, and paid KRW 42,762,940,00 in the instant office’s rent, indoor interior interior decoration (including households) and electrical equipment expenses, signboard installation expenses, brokerage fees, etc.

2) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to resume the business under the instant agreement by deeming that there was no difficulty in running the business solely with an authorized substitute driver, but the Defendant rejected the instant agreement on the ground that it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to conduct the business unlike the Plaintiff. The instant agreement was reversed by the agreement of all the parties. C. The instant office was concluded under the joint name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, etc. according to the Plaintiff’s proposal.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.20 2014가합56607

-대구지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나301822

-부산고등법원 2021.04.01 2020나52309

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나74104

-인천지방법원 2017.02.07 2016나58331