(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가단308834

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) 부산지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가단308834

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 22, 2016 to February 2, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim for agreed amount

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff would transfer the instant business entity to D (hereinafter “D”) while engaging in the manufacturing and sales business of industrial machinery, etc. under the trade name of “C” (hereinafter “instant business entity”). The Plaintiff consulted with the employees in charge of D about the transfer price in cash at KRW 300,000,000, and the Plaintiff would work as E Co., Ltd., which is an affiliated company of D and be in charge of the operation and management of the machinery transferred from the instant business entity.

In the meantime, the Defendant agreed to receive the remainder of KRW 100,000 from D and the transfer price of KRW 200,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff shall pay the remainder of KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Accordingly, between D and D on April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a property transfer agreement with the content that transfers the instant business entity to KRW 200,000,000.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and damages for delay pursuant to the instant agreement.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 5, it is not sufficient to acknowledge that the plaintiff and Eul entered into a contract with the contents as alleged by the plaintiff, but further, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant agreed to pay 100,000,000 won in the remaining transfer price name to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise. The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to loan claims

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on June 13, 2014 without fixing the due date for reimbursement is either a dispute between the parties or a dispute between the parties, taking into account the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence set forth in subparagraphs A and 10 (including the serial number).

Thus, the defendant shall, unless there are special circumstances, be the plaintiff from the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.26 2017가단67899

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2021.04.29 2020고단2785

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가단5163018

-대전지방법원 2015.12.16 2015가단5078

-인천지방법원 2018.01.11 2017나63811