인수채무금
1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.
2. The part concerning the counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance.
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff as a principal lawsuit, filed a claim for debt acquisition of KRW 300,000,000 against the Defendant, and a claim for return of unjust enrichment of KRW 40,000 against the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a claim for payment of KRW 12,50,000 against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim, respectively. The court of first instance accepted part of the Plaintiff’s claim for debt acquisition, while dismissing both the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment and the Defendant’s counterclaim.
As a result, only the defendant appealed to the part against the defendant among the part against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance, and the part against the counterclaim, the actual object of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among the part against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance and the part against the counterclaim.
2. Basic facts
A. The status of the parties, etc. F is changed to “E” after the trade name of “D”, which is a crowdfunding located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, but hereinafter the same shall apply, regardless of whether it was before or after the change of the trade name. The Plaintiff is a person operating the instant database, who leased and operated the photograph of the instant database in KRW 300,000 from F to KRW 30,000.
B. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with F on the condition that the Plaintiff would receive a dividend from F in return for payment of the investment amount of KRW 300,000,000 from F (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000,000 of the investment amount to F, while entering into the partnership agreement with F, converted the lease deposit amount of the photograph portion of the instant trust agreement into the amount of KRW 300,000,000 from F. Instead, the Defendant appears to have newly leased the said portion from F to KRW 300,000,000.
In this case.