(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단227021

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 2015.01.14 2014가단227021

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to entrust the Plaintiff with the business of managing the part of the commercial building A in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and concluded a building management and service entrustment contract (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the following contents.

The number of business personnel: The contract period of KRW 4,739,840 (including value-added tax): the amount of business from January 1, 2014 to January 1, 2017: the vehicle access management and facility expenses for the defendant's facilities, the management of the environment of the defendant's facilities, the security management of the defendant's facilities, and other types of business required by the defendant: the parking of the vehicle in shift service at 24: U.S. dollars, and Saturdays.

B. On April 29, 2014, the Defendant: (a) opened a general meeting of occupants to appoint B as the president; (b) decided to terminate the instant service contract due to nonperformance of management affairs; and (c) notified the Plaintiff of the termination.

C. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant service contract had been terminated on April 30, 2014, and on May 13, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that the Plaintiff would be able to claim a subsequent claim for the interest that could have been obtained through the instant service contract, with respect to the Defendant’s intent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2, Gap's evidence 4, Gap's evidence 5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff unilaterally notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant service contract without any justifiable reason, and the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 21,700,000 (monthly 700,000 x 31 months) equivalent to the profit that the Plaintiff could have earned during the period of the instant service contract.

In this regard, the defendant did not perform the business of this case, such as parking lot management work, etc., and the service contract of this case was cancelled due to the reasons attributable to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015나51413

-광주지방법원 2018.08.28 2016가단531329

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.10.13 2014가단4360

-서울고등법원 2016.11.04 2015나2044005

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.23 2020가단33979