logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2014.11.28 2014가단32047
투자금반환
Text

1. Of the principal lawsuit of this case, the part of the conjunctive claim by the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff made an agreement with the Defendant to invest KRW 50 million in the Plaintiff’s business, and to make a sales, cash management, and to distribute profits to 50:50 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiff, with regard to running the business in the name of D at the Han-gu, Seocheon-gu C Ground Store (hereinafter “instant store”). On May 20, 2014, the term of the instant agreement was up to May 20, 2017, and the Plaintiff would receive full refund of KRW 50 million with the principal invested by the Plaintiff when the instant agreement is terminated.

B. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant pursuant to the instant agreement, and operated a business in the instant store (hereinafter “instant business”) with the Defendant as a partner.

C. On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff reported the closure of business with respect to the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (A) primarily violated the obligations stipulated in the instant agreement, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant agreement on August 7, 2014. Accordingly, the instant agreement was terminated. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

(B) Preliminary, if the agreement in this case remains, the Defendant shall, pursuant to the agreement in this case, have to do so.

5. If 20.20. The Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

(2) Defendant’s assertion (A) did not violate the duty of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(B) Since the Plaintiff was unable to engage in the instant business since July 25, 2014 due to interference with the instant business, the Plaintiff’s operating losses from July 25, 2014, KRW 5,465,850, KRW 4.4 million from July 25, 2014 to November 2014, and thereafter, KRW 5.5 million from July 25, 2014, KRW 4.4 million from July 25, 2014, and KRW 5.5 million from July 25, 2014.

arrow