(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.15 2016가단102804

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) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.03.15 2016가단102804

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from June 13, 2016 to March 15, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of business rights (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant as follows, and transferred KRW 50 million to the deposit account in the name of Nonparty C at the Defendant’s request.

On December 3, 2014, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff the business right related to the fertilizer plant (hereinafter “instant factory”) of the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) located in Dong-si, Dong-si (hereinafter “non-party company”) at KRW 300 million.

The Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant a down payment of KRW 50 million on December 3, 2014, and the remaining KRW 250 million shall be paid on April 25, 2015, and the unpaid balance shall be paid on June 30, 2015.

B. At the time of entering into the instant contract, the Defendant stated to the Plaintiff that “The period of the instant factory operation may be guaranteed for three years. When operating a factory for three years, a minimum of KRW 500 million may be punished.”

(A) Evidence of No. 3, B of No. 9 (C)

On April 2013, the defendant agreed to deliver the factory of this case to the non-party company at any time upon the request of the non-party company while leasing the factory of this case from the non-party company.

Around July 2015, Nonparty Company demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant factory within two months (Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 11, 9) and agreed to receive the instant factory by November 15, 2015 between the Defendant and C, on October 12, 2015.

(B) [Evidence 4] / [Evidence 4] / without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including additional number), Eul evidence 1, 4 and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the main claim

A. (i) In the event that an error in motive falls under a mistake in the important part of the content of a juristic act as to the cause of the claim, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the declaration of intent in question, and if it is deemed that the motive is the content of a juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, it

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2016.12.21 2016나54377

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.07.20 2018가단2034

-대전지방법원 2020.10.07 2019가단135526

-수원고등법원 2021.03.18 2020나18435

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.10.25 2019가단201012