손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff and the defendant related to the plaintiff and the defendant met with the introduction of a branch person around November 2010, and met with them on the premise of marriage from May 201 to May 201, the plaintiff living together with the defendant on the premise of marriage, and then arranged the beneficiary to look at around May 2014, and selected him thereafter.
Around May 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased a lease deposit of KRW 20 million and KRW 1 million in the monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and operated a store with the name of “E” in the name of “E” in the name of the Plaintiff.
Around May 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred the above so-called “F” to F, and received KRW 72 million as the transfer proceeds, KRW 5 million on April 17, 2014, KRW 500,000 on June 23, 2014, and KRW 79 million on October 2, 2014, as the corporate bank account in the name of the Defendant.
On May 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased the Housing G Apartment H (hereinafter “G apartment”) in the name of the Plaintiff at KRW 45 million in the lease deposit amount, and lived together with the Plaintiff around May 201.
45 million won of the above lease deposit was loaned by the plaintiff from his father I.
On February 2, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of J and K (hereinafter “JB”) in the name of the Plaintiff at KRW 70 million in the name of the Plaintiff and moved around May 2012.
After the termination of the JJ Lending lease, KRW 70 million was paid to the corporate bank account in the name of the defendant on May 8, 2014.
After all, the defendant, who leased and resided G apartment in his/her name, purchased at 61,285,000 won on December 10, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his/her name on December 30, 2014.
[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of a partial dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, Eul 1, and Eul 1, the gist of the plaintiff's argument as to the claim related to the transfer price, which is the purport of the entire pleadings, should be divided into the plaintiff according to the share ratio if the relationship with the defendant was terminated by transferring the plaintiff's stores operated as a partnership with the plaintiff.