logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가합568317
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 231,135,639 as well as 5% per annum from September 12, 2015 to December 18, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. The Plaintiff is a company with the purpose of operating its store business in the premises of a railroad station, advertising business in the premises of a railroad station, and providing services.

B. On April 16, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract for specialized store operation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to a store of 35 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) located in the water sources 924 square meters underground located in the water sources eng-ro, Suwon-gu, Suwon-gu, and operated its business at the instant store (hereinafter “instant contract”).

C. The plaintiff confirmed that the defendant omitted the sales of the store of this case in violation of the contract of this case and used the device that was not approved to the plaintiff, and requested the defendant to correct it, but the defendant did not correct it.

Accordingly, on May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the instant contract as of May 23, 2014 and to deliver the instant store by May 28, 2014, on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of obligations under the instant contract.

Even after the termination of the instant contract, the Defendant continued to operate the instant store by refusing to deliver it.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the delivery of the instant store, and the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on September 11, 2015, which was subsequent to the loss of the said lawsuit.

E. Article 42(4) of the instant contract: (a) the Defendant refused to surrender the instant store after the lapse of the date of designation of the name map (e.g., May 28, 2014); and (b) in the event that the instant store is possessed, the amount equivalent to 1.5 times the Plaintiff’s profit should be paid as compensation for damages on the larger amount between the average daily sales of the creation of the monthly minimum daily occupation, or the average daily sales of the immediately preceding 12 months’ monthly average sales.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not deliver the store of this case without having a legal title to possess the store of this case.

arrow