(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2019나34793

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.10.15 2019나34793

권리금

Text

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant has operated the “E agency” in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cbuilding D (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. On November 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff would take over all of the instant store and its appurtenances from the Defendant as premium of KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant and the broker as down payment.

C. However, the Plaintiff did not enter into a lease agreement with its owner with respect to the instant store.

According to the contract of this case, where the Plaintiff and its owner fail to enter into the contract of this case normally, the contract of this case shall be rescinded, and the Defendant shall return the down payment, etc. to the Plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, entry of Eul evidence 1 through 3, testimony of witness F of the first instance trial, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant contract in the event that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not normally conclude the lease contract with the owner of the instant store. The instant contract is deemed terminated as the Plaintiff did not actually conclude the lease contract with the owner. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment KRW 20,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

(2) Since the contract of this case was terminated by the cause attributable to the plaintiff, the defendant can confiscate the down payment that he received from the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff's claim for the return of the down payment has expired five years after the extinctive prescription period prescribed in the Commercial Act.

B. Determination is based on the following circumstances, i.e., the instant contract: (a) November 14, 2012.

참조조문

-상법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.30 2015나49384

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.28 2015나9319

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.25 2015나53512

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.14 2017나73787

-울산지방법원 2020.12.10 2019나15670