logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.14 2015가단108057
동업관계정산에 따른 정산금반환청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that, each of the Defendants, Plaintiff 30,000,000 won (the share ratio of KRW 42.9%) and Defendant B, KRW 35,00,00 (the share ratio of KRW 50%) and Defendant C5,000,000 (7.1%) agreed to operate the distribution business of quasi-drugs, D, and the Plaintiff agreed to operate the distribution business of quasi-drugs. Since disputes arise between the partners, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to withdraw to the Defendants around March 14, 2014, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share of the union property at the time of withdrawal.

As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants did not comply with the Plaintiff’s claim because they were the third party designated by E as the recipient of benefits to be paid to the title holder or E according to the business agreement with the Defendants.

2. First of all, we examine whether the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was concluded as alleged by the Plaintiff.

According to Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 10, Eul evidence 10-10-2, and Eul evidence 10-10-2, and witness F's testimony, the defendants deposited funds to conduct the piracy and manufacturing and distributing business into the account opened in the name of the plaintiff (new bank G, A (D). The plaintiff participated in the distribution business for the above piracy, introduction of products, business activities, etc., by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff was a new bank account in the name of the plaintiff used for the above piracy and manufacturing and distributing business.

8. Recognizing the receipt of KRW 1,500,000 each month on two occasions each month.

However, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendants on the sole basis of the above facts, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is recognized.

arrow