logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.18 2014가단139678
보증금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion (A) is the defendant's representative director C, and the contract for the removal of the E commercial price in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter "the removal contract of this case").

F) On July 8, 201, the Defendant, who was granted the power of representation to enter into the contract, contracted the removal of the instant removal work with F and G for KRW 196 million (hereinafter “instant removal contract”). The instant removal work is deemed to be the “instant removal contract”).

(B) At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant in accordance with the agreement. (b) The Defendant did not perform its obligations under the instant contract until three years have passed since the date of the instant contract, thereby terminating the instant contract and claiming the return of the deposit for removal already paid. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant did not confer the right of representation to enter into the instant contract on F and G, and did not receive the deposit for removal from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim under the premise that the Defendant entered into the instant contract with the Plaintiff.

B. At the time of the instant contract, the Plaintiff did not have received the power of attorney from F, G, etc. to grant the Defendant the right to remove construction of this case to F, G, etc., and the payment of the removal deposit under the instant contract to an agent other than the Defendant corporate account is not an exceptional. In light of the foregoing, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff entered the instant contract into with the Defendant solely on the basis of each of the evidence A1 through 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with F and G, etc. with legitimate power of representation from the Defendant, and accordingly, paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

arrow