logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.06.24 2014나5746
임대료
Text

1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3.

(1) On October 14, 201, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000 from the Defendant’s Kimhae-si C factory and machinery and equipment (hereinafter “instant factory and machinery and equipment”).

(2) On August 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff by September 15, 2012, in return for the transfer of all food safety management certification standards (HCCP) and business to D, a new lessee of the said factory, by September 15, 2012.

(2) On August 21, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred to D all the name and business of the instant HCCP applicant company to D on August 21, 2012 pursuant to the instant agreement.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won under the agreement of this case and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 16, 2012, which is the date following the due date to June 24, 2015, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. Defendant’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not deliver D the instant HCCP-related factory drawings, the HACCP management guidelines, the HACC-related prior requirements program, the HACC-related risk analysis data, various experimental inspection results, and machinery equipment-related inspection date. Thus, the Defendant did not perform its duty to transfer the HACCP-related factory drawings.

arrow