(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나33637

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나33637

부당이득반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From March 1, 2011, F and G: (a) leased a three-story building located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City D (hereinafter “instant building”) and operated a wedding hall (hereinafter “instant wedding hall”); (b) around January 201, between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Defendant operated a dice rental business and a beauty room in the instant wedding hall; (c) the deposit was KRW 300 million; and (d) the term of the contract was from January 7, 201 to January 7, 2016, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the Defendant’s deposit money.

B. Upon the termination of C’s termination notification around July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant building from C on March 1, 2016 and operated a wedding hall at all times. From June 1, 2016 to May 30, 2018, the term of the contract between the Defendant and the Defendant was from June 1, 2016 to May 30, 2018. The substantial content was to enter into the “unusedd and Drick Cooperative Agreement” (hereinafter “instant contract”) similar to the previous contract concluded by F, G and the Defendant, and received KRW 150 million from the Defendant on April 19, 2016.

C. However, around February 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the instant contract with the Defendant, and paid the Defendant the amount of KRW 10 million on March 6, 2017, and KRW 290 million on March 27, 2017.

[Grounds for recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not have a duty to pay to the Defendant the remainder of KRW 150 million, excluding KRW 100,000,000,000 paid by the Defendant. However, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to pay the deposit by taking advantage of the Plaintiff’s old circumstances, and the Plaintiff was forced to pay the deposit to the Defendant to avoid de facto loss arising in the course of operating the wedding hall. Therefore, the Defendant received KRW 150,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2012.12.06 2011고단4326

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.11.01 2017가합9222

-서울동부지방법원 2020.05.22 2018가합115182

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단69711

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.01.17 2019가합527