logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.04.21 2018가단239954
구상금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 26,57,123 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from January 30, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. In accepting the instant restaurant, the Defendant promises the Plaintiff to implement the payment method of the acquisition amount as follows. The total acquisition amount shall be KRW 100,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as “the total acquisition amount”).

(1) The down payment (10,000,000) won shall be paid not later than February 29.

(2) The remainder of the Gu million won (90,000,000) shall be paid KRW 3,750,000 (3,750,000) on the 15th day of each month between March 2, 2016 and February 2018.

*특약: 2달 이상 월납으로 약속한 잔금(②항)을 연체하거나 식당 관련 공과금 및 가게세 및 직원 급여 그리고 가게 관련 업체(가스, 야채, 본사 식재료 등)에 2달 이상의 연체나 미지급으로 인한 불미스러운 일이 생길 시 피고는 모든 권리를 바로 포 기하고 식당 영업권을 원고에게 인계한다. 가.

On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with regard to a restaurant with the mutual name “D” in the Defendant and Kimpo-si C (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), setting the transfer proceeds as KRW 100,000,000. The main parts of the instant contract are as follows.

B. The Defendant operated the instant restaurant from the conclusion of the instant contract to July 31, 2016 without changing the name of the instant restaurant from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff’s future.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) while acquiring and operating the restaurant of this case, the plaintiff defendant did not pay a total of KRW 26,577,123, such as rent, public charges, and food material expenses incurred in relation to the restaurant of this case on behalf of the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of indemnity 26,577,123, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The defendant's contract of this case is directly the defendant's business right of the restaurant of this case.

arrow