(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.27 2014가단5326309

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 2016.01.27 2014가단5326309

계약금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts below the basis of facts are without dispute between the Parties:

The plaintiff is a company that operates a performance planning business, etc., and the defendant is a company that operates a performance hall rental business.

B. On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a rental contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid 5,478,000 won as down payment to the Defendant on March 21, 2014.

Performance halls: Down-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Community Center (hereinafter referred to as "community center"): From November 6, 2014 to May 6, 2015, performing works: The performance fee of KRW 166,780,000 (excluding value-added tax) 5,4780,000,000 for an intermediate payment (40%) 7,304,000 won until March 25, 2014 (30%) shall be the remainder (30%) 5,478,00 won until September 2, 2014.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) At the time of the instant contract, Daewoo Shipbuilding Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Shipbuilding Construction”)

(2) The Plaintiff, while exercising the right of retention, was in possession and management of the musical center. The Defendant raised an objection to this fact, and the Defendant, upon exercising the right of retention, told the Plaintiff to the effect that there is no problem in the rental of the vessel, as the issue of the construction cost is that treatment ocean construction exercises the right of retention, but is to be resolved by the loan promptly, and the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract. However, the right of retention has not been resolved continuously, and the Plaintiff urged the resolution of the right of retention, and the Defendant promised to obtain the consent of the construction of treatment shipbuilding. However, the Defendant did not comply with the said promise. However, the Defendant did not comply with the obligation of the Plaintiff to rent the performance hall in the musical center. (2) The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the lien holder was legally in possession, and did not comply with the agreement of the lien holder even though the Defendant urged the Plaintiff as if he had the right of possession.

2.3.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나30030

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.9.22. 선고 2016고합1299 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.02 2014나42546

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.27 2019가단5091721

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.08 2016가단5031148