(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.22 2016가단34206

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.12.22 2016가단34206

용역비(노임)

Text

1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. The cause of the instant claim concerning the cause of the claim is as set out in the annexed sheet of the claim.

If the plaintiff (Appointed Party) claims, the plaintiffs concluded a sales agency contract with the defendants on June 2016 through the non-party F, the representative of the plaintiffs, with the defendant on June 1, 2016, and vicariously concluded a sales agency contract as stated in the attached Form 5. Paragraph 5., which is the cause of the claim, but did not receive the fees, so the plaintiffs seek payment for the unpaid fees as stated in the claims.

B. The Defendant B Housing Association did not conclude a contract with the Plaintiffs for parcelling-out agency, and only concluded a contract with the F to pay the parcelling-out commission whenever it recruits one household with the F, and thus, the Plaintiffs cannot directly seek payment of the parcelling-out commission. The Defendant C Company did not participate in the business of acting in the Defendant B Housing Association or recruiting its members, but did not conclude the contract with the Plaintiffs or F. Thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim is unjust.

2. Although there is no dispute between the parties as to the conclusion of the contract on the vicarious sale of goods in lots or the invitation of members with the F and the Defendant B Housing Association, it cannot be deemed that the direct contractual relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants exists due to the above contract, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this point solely with the descriptions of the evidence No. 4-1, No. 2 and No. 3, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion based on the premise that there is a contractual relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants with respect to the above parcelling-out agency is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017. 12. 22. 선고 2016가단34206 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2014. 10. 16. 선고 2014가합2735 제37민사부 판결

-서울북부지방법원 2021.02.04 2019가합26599

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.08.14 2020가합101624

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018. 2. 21. 선고 2016가단22381 제1민사부 판결