(영문) 부산지방법원 2014.11.06 2013가합48701

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) 부산지방법원 2014.11.06 2013가합48701

손해배상(기)

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are parents of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Defendant is the person who transferred his business to the deceased and E while operating a photographic steo.

B. On August 8, 2011, the Deceased and E acquired from the Defendant the status of the parties to the contract for the manufacture of the University Albio who entered into an agreement with the Defendant under the name of the Defendant and the entirety of the business of the photographic Pidio operated by the Defendant, and the name of the Defendant, and agreed to pay the Defendant the remainder of KRW 60 million with the down payment and the intermediate payment, and to pay the remainder of KRW 95 million with the payment received from the university later (hereinafter “instant transfer agreement”).

C. In accordance with the instant business transfer agreement, the Deceased paid down payment and intermediate payment KRW 60 million to the Defendant; around November 201, the Deceased made and completed the production and supply of each university in accordance with the instant business transfer agreement; accordingly, the Defendant received all balance by receiving KRW 159,865,00 from the said university to March 2012, by remitting the remainder of the instant business transfer agreement.

Nevertheless, around March 15, 2012, the Defendant sent a notice of termination of the contract of this case to the Deceased and E, stating that “the deceased and E did not pay KRW 90 million out of the balance of KRW 95 million, and notify the deceased to return the Switzerland or to pay the balance by March 30, 2012, and would be deemed to have terminated the business transfer contract of this case without any separate notice until the time is not returned or the balance is not paid.”

E. Accordingly, around March 20, 2012, the deceased’s receipt of the payment to the Defendant in excess of the remainder constitutes embezzlement, and therefore, the deceased’s payment of the remainder to the Defendant is not acceptable.

In spite of the transfer of business to the deceased and E, the defendant continues to engage in the photographing business.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.12.19 2018나51997

-부산지방법원 2013.10.16 2012고단10735

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.26 2017가합20269

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.29 2016가단871

-수원지방법원 2018.10.25 2018나3073