logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.01.20 2019가단3836
택배정산금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,053,802 as well as the interest rate from May 29, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff is a legal entity that carries on the business of transportation and cargo transportation, and the Defendant B is an individual entrepreneur who carries on the collection and delivery of the goods requested by the customer using the Plaintiff’s home delivery service and operates a certain portion of the commission fee as profit by receiving a commission from the Plaintiff.

On May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a contract with the contents of the Plaintiff’s home dispatch service and operation of the Plaintiff’s home dispatch service site, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff arising from the said contract at the time.

Defendant B did not deposit KRW 40,053,802 to the Plaintiff by January 31, 2018.

[Ground for recognition] Evidence A 1 to 4 (including each number, if any)

2. According to the facts of recognition of the cause of the claim, Defendant B is the principal debtor, and Defendant C is a joint and several surety, and the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 40,053,802 won unpaid fixed-sum allotment and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 29, 2019 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment of the defendants

A. Since a few years prior to the Defendants’ assertion, the Plaintiff’s argument that the branch was sold or sold in installments, and the Defendant B confirmed that the branch was the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff was never at all at all, and the sale was no absolute. Nevertheless, in 2018, the Plaintiff sold the first East Jeju Branch to DF in advance, and caused the Defendant B to lose the status of the head of the front line business office.

The Plaintiff’s act violates Article 7(3) of the Business Office Contract. If the Plaintiff informed in advance of the sale of a branch, Defendant B could prepare for departure from employment and obtain the status of the principal office of another business office.

arrow