logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.09.26 2013나4939
약정금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 9, 2010, E prepared a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the way that the deposit amount is KRW 360 million, and the monthly rent of KRW 5 million, and thereafter, he has operated the wedding business in the instant Party.

B. On March 21, 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract for acquisition of the right facilities with the content that KRW 560 million shall be paid by the date of the contract, the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, the first intermediate payment of KRW 270 million, and the second intermediate payment of KRW 20 million shall be paid by May 31, 2012, with the intention to acquire the right to KRW 680,000,000 in total amount of KRW 560,000,000 in deposit and KRW 120,000,000 in total.

On March 28, 2012, the Defendant paid to E a sum of KRW 180 million, including KRW 150 million as the first intermediate payment of KRW 30 million per contract date, and KRW 180 million.

I (E) entered into a contract to transfer to the Defendant during the course of operation as the sub-lessee of the Plaintiff’s original owner of the instant Party.

(The defendant shows his lease contract, business registration certificate, and explained that he is the owner). Moreover, the down payment and the first intermediate payment have been received, and the defendant knew that he is not the original owner, and after he knows that he is not the original owner, he signed each letter with the original owner (the plaintiff) and E.

The seller (E) bears a risk of the payment of the second intermediate payment with approximately KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,0000,000,0000,000

C. However, on April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that “E is a lessee of the instant New Holdings and is merely a sub-lessee.” On April 13, 2012, “E” prepared and rendered a letter of performance as follows to the Plaintiff.

E shall be subject to the order of this case.

arrow