(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.28 2014가합17164

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.28 2014가합17164

계약관계부존재확인

Text

1. The term “C” concluded on October 24, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on February 28, 2014.

Reasons

The summary of the case is the case that the plaintiff seeks confirmation on the termination of the contract on February 28, 2014 between the defendant and the Labor Institute Partnership Agreement between the defendant.

On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant to jointly operate the “C” on the third floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government DD Building and mutually distribute profits, and, upon which E, his/her ancillary, agreed to act as a substitute for the management affairs of the Plaintiff’s private teaching institutes.

【The ground for recognition】 The issue of whether there is no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument in this case (whether or not the agreement has been reached) is null and void due to the defendant’s declaration of intention to cancel the agreement on the termination of the agreement (the dispute No. 1) (the dispute No. 2-1) due to the defendant’s declaration of intention to cancel the agreement on the termination of the agreement (the dispute No. 2-2) (the dispute No. 2-3) due to the declaration of intention due to fraud (the dispute No. 2-2) is invalid due to the plaintiff’s declaration of intention to cancel the agreement on February 28, 2014).

The notification of the termination of the contract of the defendant's assertion E is not valid, and the conversation between E and the defendant was in the process of termination of the contract. The time of termination of the contract of the same case is around September 30, 2014 where the defendant consented to the plaintiff's expression of termination.

Judgment

In fact, on February 24, 2014, 2014, the defendant's Kakakao Stockholm dialogue (in relation to the expression that E cannot maintain a partnership, we will consider continuing to think even if the E is so wrong," and we will consider the decision that "it is the same that the E has already been able to do so as well as that it has already been able to do so, and that it does not have to do so, and that it does not have to do so."

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.01.22 2014가단13456

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.16 2016가단5312250

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.09 2017나28275

-서울고등법원 2020.01.23 2018나2050360