logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2013가합50553
외상매출채권 이행
Text

1. On January 9, 2014, Defendant A’s 20,055,303 won, Defendant B’s 22,233,566 won, and each of the said money.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures and sells drugs, etc., and the Defendants, from September 2009 to January 201, 2013, sold drugs, etc. to the customer who managed the Defendants as the Plaintiff’s business employees, and collected the price.

On September 209, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendants to receive 67.5% of the difference between the contractual amount received by the Defendants as retirement allowance and 32.5% of the contractual amount received by the Defendants. However, around April 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to receive 67.5% of the difference between the contractual amount received by the Defendants and the contractual amount entered in the account book of the customer (hereinafter “the difference between the contractual amount received by the Defendants”), and then changed the rate of the Defendants’ wages to 25% of the contractual amount received by the Defendants, and the difference between the contractual amount to be borne by the Defendants to 75%, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the "Agreement of this case"). (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case"), without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4-9, Eul evidence 5-5-6, Eul 5-5-5, Eul 5, Eul 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1-1, the whole purport of the pleading is to examine the defendants' obligation to pay the difference of the attempted amount of this case, the whole purport of the pleading, ① there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, or the whole purport of the pleading in Gap evidence 2 (Transaction No. 2). The difference between the attempted amount of this case to the customer of the defendant's pharmacy managed by the defendant A prior to his retirement is 4,620,479 won, ② there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, or the whole purport of the argument as to Gap evidence 4-5, 8, 21, and 6-1, respectively.

arrow