logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원상주지원 2015.04.16 2015가합27
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s business agreement, etc. between the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) the business of slaughtering pigs from swine farmers around December 2001; and (b) selling pigs to the meat restaurant (hereinafter “instant business”).

(2) Around January 23, 2002, the Plaintiff and the Defendant established C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to conduct the instant business, registered as the representative director, and registered on February 1, 2002.

B. 1) However, during the course of performing the business of slaughter and sales of pigs, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have deteriorated their financial standing, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant are expected to terminate the club business around September 4, 2007, and on the same day, the Defendant, in the course of running the Plaintiff’s business, shall settle the club business with the Plaintiff and its wife in the manner of settling the damages, etc. incurred to the Plaintiff and its wife from September 4, 2007 to March 30, 2008 (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

(2) On the other hand, the Defendant prepared a note of the instant payment and repaid KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff to the Defendant during September 2007.

C. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment order against the Daegu District Court for the payment order of KRW 140 million due to the instant letter of payment with respect to the stay of the Defendant and damages for delay. On April 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a judgment against the Defendant on the ground of the completion of the extinctive prescription period for commercial matters from 2013Gahap504 to 504, which was the Defendant’s objection, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 22, 2014.

hereinafter referred to as "the final judgment of this case"

(ii) [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number, as a whole).

arrow