logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2019.01.30 2017가단124394
기타(금전)
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 16,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from November 3, 2017 to January 30, 2019.

Reasons

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 19, 2016, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant store”), a franchise business operator of the cosmetic franchise business, operated the instant store. The Plaintiff leased the said store to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 15,000,000, contract period of KRW 2,700,000 (the first two months), monthly rent of KRW 2,400,000 (the first two months), and received from the Defendant a deposit of KRW 15,000,000 (the first two months) (the deposit of KRW 30,000,000 on October 30, 2016; KRW 4,70,000,000 on February 19, 2016; KRW 5,000,000 on February 5, 2016; KRW 10,000 on November 10, 2016).

The provisions relating to this case in the above sub-lease contract shall be as follows:

(4) The Plaintiff shall pay 100% of the penalty to KRW 15,000 as deposit within the contract period of 2 years (if the contract of this case is terminated due to the Plaintiff’s breach of contract).

In addition, the part on the rent paid by the defendant shall be refunded.

6. The defendant shall comply with the agreement presented by C Franchise Business Headquarters during the sub-lease contract period of C Ansan.

1) The goods shall be at least 7 per cent of their sales at C Franchise Headquarters. 2) Cooperation in all sections of the C Franchise Headquarters.

3) The commitments with respect to the Education Schedule, which will be undertaken at C franchise headquarters, shall be unconditional. 4) At the head office, 200,000 won shall be payable once a time for education costs.

B. The defendant acquired and operated the store of this case from the plaintiff, and the contract of this case is terminated by the plaintiff.

On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff re-transfer the instant store to the Plaintiff.

C. While running the instant store, the Defendant received advance payment from some customers in the future, and subsequently did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the cosmetic was not completed at the time of transferring the instant store again, despite the fact that the cosmetic had not been completed, the Defendant did not inform the Plaintiff.

Since then on June 2017, this case from the Plaintiff.

arrow