(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.12.08 2016가단7360

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) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.12.08 2016가단7360

명의변경절차이행

Text

1. The defendant shall implement the procedure for changing the name of the business permission as stated in the attached Form to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are to operate a restaurant in the same business, and the Defendant leased the store in the Defendant’s name of KRW 5,00,000, and KRW 400,000,00, and the Defendant obtained permission for the business of food service in the Defendant’s name on November 12, 2015, and completed registration of business in the Defendant’s name around November 16, 200.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant operated a restaurant from November 19, 2015 to the same business, and on February 4, 2016, the Defendant transferred the name of the said restaurant to the Defendant, and made a delegation contract (Evidence A 1). The main contents thereof are as follows:

The plaintiff shall pay 5,00,000 won each month to July, and 2,500,000 won for facility costs by the end of February.

B. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed on February 4, 2016 to delegate the restaurant authority to the Defendant at the time of a contract breach. On February 4, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,000,500,000 to the Defendant as above.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff did not have dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the ground for a claim as to the purport of the entire argument, as seen earlier, and as seen in the judgment on the ground for a claim as to the purport of the delegation contract of this case, but the defendant did not transfer the name of the restaurant to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure

In this regard, the defendant asserts that it is impossible to implement the above procedure for change of name because the plaintiff did not pay KRW 1,00,000 for the premium to the defendant, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff promised to give the premium to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is accepted as reasonable.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.06.24 2015가합1219

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.08.28 2015가합954

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015가합4564

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2017.11.23 2017가합374

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.22 2018가단5130179