(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.06.04 2014가합1821 (1)

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) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.06.04 2014가합1821 (1)

대여금지급 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From October 17, 2011, the Defendant had been operating a D cafeteria in Seosung-gu, Daejeon. However, on April 15, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant acquired the D cafeteria from the Defendant to KRW 280,000 ( KRW 140,000,000,000,000,000,000).

B. Accordingly, on April 16, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff’s share acquisition amount by remitting KRW 125 million to the Defendant, and KRW 20 million to E on April 20, 2012.

On April 20, 2012, which was confirmed, the amount of KRW 140 million transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account is for taking over the D restaurant, and the registration of business and the name of lease up to the present date is in the Defendant’s future. The Defendant confirms that if the D restaurant is sold or sold in the future, it shall be paid about KRW 50 million to E and transfer it to E, and the Plaintiff and E shall be recognized as the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff, and E shall be paid 10 million interest per month to the Plaintiff.

From June 2012 to January 2013, the Plaintiff received profits from the operation of the D cafeteria from E, but thereafter, the Plaintiff was unable to receive profits due to the decline in the sales of the cafeteria, and agreed with E to omit in the cafeteria business relationship.

Then, on August 22, 2013, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and E drafted a written confirmation of the following (hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

[Ground of recognition] 1 to 4 evidence, 1 to 3 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness E's testimony, and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) entered into the instant agreement and agreed to transfer its business registration and the lessee’s name to the Plaintiff while filing a claim for damages or unjust enrichment on the ground of nonperformance of the obligation to transfer the name of the restaurant; (b) but thereafter, the Defendant became unable to perform the obligation to transfer the name by disposing of the D restaurant to a third party.

. The above.

유사 판례

-광주고등법원(전주) 2015.12.24 2015나100940

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.03.13 2018가단2871

-대구고등법원 2017.01.25 2016나22845

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.01.26 2015가합100609

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가단111355