logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원용인시법원 2015.02.12 2014가단377
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff in Suwon-si District Court 2014 Ghana4175 is executory against the Defendant.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) The Defendant filed a claim for damages with the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gapo4175, which ordered the Plaintiff to pay “4 million won (the amount equal to two million won paid at the time when the contract was entered into with the Plaintiff) and damages incurred therefrom” (hereinafter “the decision on performance recommendation of this case”). The decision on performance recommendation was served on the Plaintiff around August 1, 2014. The Plaintiff submitted a written objection to around August 21, 2014, which was 14 days after the 14th day from the Plaintiff, and the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive on August 19, 2014; (2) the Defendant, around April 28, 2013, had been in place between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who had been in place at the time of the establishment of an apartment company, and had been in the place of residence of the Plaintiff during the period from 30 months to 30 months to 20 years to 30 months after the Plaintiff’s residence.

A) Upon the conclusion of the above director's contract, the defendant shall determine the total director's expenses as 3.2 million won, and the remaining two million won, excluding the director's expenses (1.2 million won) at the last domicile determined later among them, shall be paid first to the plaintiff as the director's expenses (1.4 million won for the director's expenses from Changwon to the place of storage) and the storage expenses (2.6 million won per month to the place of storage). The special agreement contains the phrase "after storage, damp and Fungi child's expenses" as the contents of the above director's contract. ③ After that, the plaintiff takes the defendant's removal as the director's office and keeps the defendant's removal at the above office around July 14, 2013; ④ However, the defendant on July 24, 2013, not around July 2013 as stipulated in the director's contract of this case, but around December 24, 2013.

arrow