logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.09.05 2019가단5676
각서금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally committed against the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and Defendant B, Inc. from March 26, 2019.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff made an investment of KRW 100 million in the import business of marine fishery products promoted by the above defendant with the defendant Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "B") on October 18, 2018, and entered into a marine fishery product investment agreement and confidentiality contract (hereinafter "the contract of this case") with which the profit therefrom is to be distributed. The plaintiff made an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant B on October 18, 2018, and the contract of this case that the plaintiff would pay KRW 10 million to the plaintiff on November 28, 2018, KRW 10 million on December 22, 2018, KRW 40 million on December 24, 2018 (hereinafter "the contract of this case"), and the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to return the interest of KRW 200 million to the plaintiff on April 14, 2014.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from March 26, 2019 to the date of service of a copy of the application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of March 15, 2019, and from July 26, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion: (a) if the Plaintiff unilaterally rescinded the instant contract, they shall compensate for damages of KRW 1,050,000,000; and (b) the instant payment rejection was only prepared and made in the form as necessary by the Plaintiff in light of the circumstances; (c) however, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is added.

arrow