beta
Text
1. The defendant delivers to the plaintiff each movable stated in the separate sheet, and it is impossible to deliver each of the above movable.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a purchase transaction agreement with the “Igland” and opened the clothing store “D” (hereinafter “instant store”) at the C located in Daegu Northern-gu B.
B. The Plaintiff entered into a consignment contract with Nonparty E and entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on October 20, 2015, and entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the instant store. The contract term was for one year until October 19, 2016, and the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that the Plaintiff may terminate the consignment sale contract if there are three of the following reasons as a special agreement.
(A) ① The debt relationship with the former truster is irrelevant to the head office, and when confirming the debt relationship (tegrative expenses and other expenses), the termination of the contract is terminated in the event of a problem with C points due to neglect of work delivery and store management. ③ The termination of the contract in January 2015 to February 2016, 2016.
C. From January 2016 to May 201, the sales amount of the instant store showed an average of 33.9% -3.99% compared to the previous year. From February 2016 to May 201, the sales amount from February 2016 to May 201 increased the reverse rate from 24.71% to 77.48% compared with the previous year’s period.
Accordingly, on May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff terminated the consignment contract of the instant store on the grounds of the failure to manage inventory and the extension of sales performance.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's 3, 4, 5, and 6 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, sales in the instant store was remarkably increased in comparison with the previous year. This constitutes grounds for termination stipulated in the sales contract of the instant store, and thus, the sales contract of the instant store was terminated by the Plaintiff’s termination on May 19, 2016.
Therefore, the defendant is therefore subject to the consignment contract of this case.