(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.01 2014가합106050

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) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.01 2014가합106050

손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B for the transfer of a store (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) in the aggregate of KRW 110 million, including KRW 95 million in premium and KRW 15 million in lease deposit (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”), and on the same day, paid KRW 100 million to Defendant B as the down payment on July 27, 2013 and KRW 100 million in the remainder of July 31, 2013.

B. On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff registered the type of business at the instant establishment as a type of business, a type of business, and a type of business, and has operated a marina business.

C. Meanwhile, the instant business is located in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone under the School Health Act. On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff was regulated on the grounds that the instant business was in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. and the School Health Act by arranging similar sexual acts, etc. to employees.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2-9's evidence, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion was introduced by the defendant C to enter into the transfer contract of this case. The defendants did not notify the plaintiff that the business of this case was located within the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone under the School Health Act in the course of entering into the transfer contract of this case in collusion with the plaintiff, and did not notify the plaintiff that the defendant B was subject to the control of sexual traffic brokerage at the business of this case, and did not notify the fact that the defendant B was subject to the control of sexual traffic brokerage, thereby deceiving the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff is obliged to pay for damages.

3. We examine the judgment, and the business of a marina of the name of the list, which the plaintiff intended to operate, constitutes a prohibited business that is unable to operate in the business of this case located in the school environmental sanitation and cleanup zone, and the defendants also constitute a prohibited business.

참조조문

-학교보건법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.11 2014가합2812

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.11.06 2013고정3405

-수원지방법원 2015.03.25 2014고단7204

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2015.07.16 2014고단3214

-서울동부지방법원 2014.03.19 2014고정226