(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합108424

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 2015.01.15 2014가합108424

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Nonparty B entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on September 6, 2004 to create a park cemetery and to sell a charnel and charnel with the Plaintiff via the real estate development business entity. Nonparty B agreed to pay the Plaintiff a performance guarantee amount of KRW 350 million on May 14, 2004, KRW 100 million, KRW 250 million on June 2, 2004, and KRW 70 million on July 5, 2004, and to return the deposit amount of KRW 50% on September 6, 2004, when the sale in lots is completed by 50%, KRW 30% on the completion of sale in lots, and KRW 20% on the completion of sale in lots by 90%.

B. The Defendant was established on August 5, 2005, and B was appointed as a director with the power of representation.

B On July 6, 2007, on behalf of the Defendant, concluded a sales agency contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the same content as the existing sales agency contract (hereinafter “instant sales agency contract”) on behalf of the Plaintiff, and agreed to substitute the performance bond with the Plaintiff for KRW 700 million already paid to B.

C. On August 10, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s breach of the sales agency contract, and demanded the return of the performance bond, and B retired from office as the Defendant’s director on December 31, 2010.

The Plaintiff was partially paid fees under the sales agency contract by the Defendant until 2012.

On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the refund of KRW 700 million on the ground of the termination of the sales agency contract. On January 4, 2014, the main contents of the instant sales agency contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the appellate court of the instant case, which was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, conflict with the interests of the corporation and the directors under Article 64 of the Civil Act, with the purport of accepting the Defendant’s obligation to refund the deposit owed by the Defendant, a representative of the Defendant. However, the contract was concluded without the appointment of a special representative who duly represents the Defendant, and is not effective against the Defendant

참조조문

-민법 제64조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가합533933

-수원지방법원 2017.11.02 2016나20340

-서울북부지방법원 2016.11.17 2015가합26836

-부산고등법원 2015.07.16 2013나53007

-창원지방법원 2019.01.17 2018가합50812