(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나9552

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나9552

위약금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment] In the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "Plaintiff" in the first part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed "Defendant".

Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "one joint name between the defendant and C" in Part 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "for security, the issuer is limited to three joint names of the defendant and the representative director of the defendant."

Part 4 of the decision of the first instance court, “The Defendant, in accordance with Article 8(2) of the instant arrangement, shall be deemed to read “the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks, pursuant to Article 8(2) of the instant arrangement to the Plaintiff.”

Part 4 of the first instance court's decision, Part 1, 5, 6, 9, and 10 "Witness D" shall be read as "Witness D of the first instance court's decision."

Article 8 (2) of the No. 9 of the No. 9 Decree of this case provides that “Where the contract is terminated due to the circumstances of the defendant (including Paragraph (1) and No. 1 and No. 3) the sub-lease for the relevant shop is due to the circumstances of the defendant, the defendant shall immediately return the deposit under Article 1 to the plaintiff, and shall pay the penalty for breach of contract to the plaintiff separately, and the penalty for breach of contract shall be paid KRW 50 million.” In addition, Article 8 (2) of the No. 9 of the No. 9 Decree of this case explicitly mentions the case where the contract is terminated due to the reason that the defendant is

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2020.05.15 2019누61146

-서울고등법원 2015.03.17 2014나2032012

-인천지방법원 2017.01.24 2016나7579

-서울고등법원 2018.12.26 2018나2033488

-서울고등법원 2020.05.29 2019누67434