(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.10 2017가단211183

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.10 2017가단211183

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) opened the instant private teaching institute in order to take over the instant private teaching institute (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”); (b) transferred the down payment of KRW 8,000,000 to the Defendant, which was operated by the Defendant as a broker of D affiliated with C; and (c) subsequently, transferred the instant private teaching institute to the Defendant.

B. On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff acquires all rights and facilities, including the originals, facilities, etc., of the instant driving school from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

In the instant contract, premium shall be KRW 80,000,000, and the down payment of KRW 80,000 shall be KRW 40,000 at the time of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 32,000,000,000, and the balance of KRW 32,000,000 shall be paid on April 3, 2017, and the details of the instant contract attached to the instant contract shall be paid on April 11, 2017. “The detailed contents of the rights agreement attached to the instant contract shall be based on 110 persons, but not more than 10 persons shall raise any objection,” “if the total rent is increased by more than 10% at the time of the lease with the owner of the building, this contract may be terminated according to the transferee’s judgment.”

C. On April 3, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted an intermediate payment of KRW 40,000 to the Defendant.

The Defendant, without receiving any additional tuition fees from the private teaching institute of this case, operated the special lecture business for the purpose of this case, and paid 300,000 won for each person, employed two special lecture instructors. At the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff that he employed the special lecture instructors.

Accordingly, on April 7, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, with the knowledge that there is no separate additional Earson, and entered into the contract with the Defendant, and during the process of receiving the intermediate payment after the intermediate payment, the said call, the special lecture, and the instant contract.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019가합554736

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.22 2016고단2727

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나10293

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.11 2018가단5249325