logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가합573941
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff No. 103, February 6, 2015, No. 2015, dated February 6, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared the first agreement on the operation of the Ka P Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa PaP Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa P Pa P Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa Pa P Pa P Pa P Pa P Pa Pa P, the Plaintiff, and the first sub-

The main contents of the No. 1 notarial deed of this case are as follows.

The above defendant and the plaintiff shall consult with and faithfully implement the following contents:

The contents of this case's car page 120,000,000 won and premium 215,000,000 won have been invested in full by the defendant, and the plaintiff has participated only in the operation.

From June 2013 to May 2016, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the payment method of KRW 6,000,000 in Korean won each five day from June 2013 to May 2016.

Subject to the terms and conditions set forth above, and the terms and conditions set forth above, 120,000,000 won for premium and 215,000,000 won, the name of the business operator and the name of the lessor shall be the Plaintiff on the condition that the lessor’s rights are not asserted.

In order to ensure the smooth operation of the workplace and to ensure the responsible operation, the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

The operating method of a workplace shall take the lead of the plaintiff, and the part of money shall be carried out in accordance with the defendant.

The period of compulsory operation of a business entity's workplace shall be 36 months from June 2013 to May 2016, and the additional operation period shall be determined after consultation with the plaintiff according to the lease contract period with the building owner.

B. (1) The Plaintiff purchased and operated the instant carpet in accordance with the foregoing content, and on October 29, 2014, the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “the instant carpet”).

arrow