logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.19 2015나30265
계약해지로 인한 손해배상청구의 소
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. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or determination of the defendant’s additional assertion as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 8 (C) of the corresponding part of the “determination of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim” is as follows.

According to the above facts, the contract of this case was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which contains the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation (the permission to establish the main office of this case within 2 km of the business protection zone of this case). As such, the Defendant does not apply the statutory interest rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (wholly amended by Presidential Decree No. 26553, Sep. 25, 2015) from July 25, 2014 to the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case as sought by the Plaintiff. As such, the statutory interest rate of Article 3(1)5 of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (the amended by Presidential Decree No. 2653, Sep. 25, 2015).

shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated in proportion to the ratio of such damages.

B. The corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court No. 10, 6 (c) is reversed as follows.

Where the content of a contract is prepared in writing between the parties to the contract as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the language is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized in the absence of special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238540, Dec. 15, 2016). The contract between the parties, who are the instant disposition documents, is a franchise store agreement under the instant contract.

arrow