logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.04.06 2017가단9355
투자금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2016, the Plaintiff and Nonparty C entered into a partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C to operate a restaurant as a partnership business. The Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C to assess the amount of KRW 50 million to be in charge of the investment and operation of the restaurant store facilities, and C to invest the share of KRW 50 million to be invested, and distribute the net profit after deducting the cost (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).

B. According to the instant business agreement, the Plaintiff wired C the total of KRW 40 million around March 15, 2016, and KRW 10 million around April 23, 2016, to C pursuant to the said business agreement.

C. C around March 12, 2016: (a) around March 12, 2016, the restaurant operation of C and the payment of the profits to the Plaintiff: (b) around 20,000,000 rent deposit KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000 for monthly rent; (c) the 1.5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,

Since June 8, 2016, C changed the name of the business operator with respect to the above "F" to the defendant's sole name.

On the other hand, C paid to the Plaintiff KRW 5,850,000,000,000 to three times from May 16, 2016 to July 17, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant is involved in the operation of the restaurant by the defendant, and as the wife of C, C is operating the above "F" in accordance with the business agreement of this case.

The name of the business operator has been lent as described in the paragraph, and has tried to operate the restaurant and operate the restaurant.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or is not clearly disputed, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 5-2, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 to Eul evidence 6-1 and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. (1) The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is KRW 50 million for the settlement of accounts under the instant club agreement to the Plaintiff around June 8, 2016.

arrow