logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.05.01 2014나6655
대여금
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance shall revoke the main claim and dismiss the plaintiff's main claim;

2. The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2001, the Defendant invested respectively KRW 20 million with C and 20 million, and acquired deposit money of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 860,000,000, KRW 2000,000,000 from Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, where D and E (hereinafter “D”) is a lessor, and started its business. Under the above lease agreement, the lessee was the Defendant.

B. C borrowed KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff and paid the said investment. On September 2001, C transferred the instant restaurant business shares to the Plaintiff and notified the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer of equity in the partnership business of this case”

C. On February 20, 2002, the Defendant entered into a sub-lease contract with H and deposit KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the period from March 5, 2002.

On March 2004, the Defendant terminated the lease with H’s sub-lease and D, etc., and delivered the instant restaurant to D, etc.

E. On the premise that the Plaintiff was transferred the shares in the instant partnership from C, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the investment amount and the payment of the proceeds therefrom with Seoul Northern District Court Decision 201Da64949, Nov. 14, 2012. On November 14, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment ordering the Plaintiff to pay to the Plaintiff 1,6720,000 won of the remaining assets due to the dissolution of the partnership and the profits of 6720,000 won, plus the profits of 1,6720,000 won. However, the said appellate court (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2012Na9827) (Seoul Northern District Court 2012Na9827), on the ground that it is difficult to recognize that C’s consent was difficult to recognize that there was the Defendant’s consent in transferring its membership status, and thus, ordered the Plaintiff to revoke the said judgment of the first instance court and dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow