지원금품대등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, provided a liquor dealer with equipment such as cooling and cooling equipment at the store located in the 14th place indicated in the attached Table, and sold alcoholic beverages. From March 18, 2014 to June 16, 2014, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of license for alcoholic beverage wholesale business.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant, by oral agreement, transferred, during the period of license suspension, the business rights on the attached Form 14 (hereinafter “instant stores”) as the Plaintiff’s business partner, and the Defendant did not return the business rights on the said stores to the Plaintiff even after the termination of the license suspension period.
The Defendant also transferred the business rights of another sales store during the license suspension period to the Defendant, and the equipment costs of the instant stores and other sales stores were fully paid.
Therefore, in accordance with the practices of the liquor industry, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay half of the cost of operating premium of KRW 9,700,000 (the cost of equipment) according to the equipment cost, such as coolant, which the Plaintiff provided to the instant stores, and the practice of the liquor industry.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 1 through 5 (including the paper numbers), the Plaintiff is a company selling alcoholic beverages, and the Defendant is a company engaging in alcoholic beverage wholesale business; the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition of suspension of license from March 17, 2014 to June 16, 2014; the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the store located in the attached Form 14 and provided equipment, such as cooling, etc.; and the fact that the Plaintiff paid the equipment costs for other stores than the instant store.
Furthermore, in light of the circumstances such as the fact that the Defendant agreed to take over the instant store’s goodwill during the period of suspension of the Plaintiff’s license, there is no document on business takeover, and there is no evidence that the Defendant currently supplied alcoholic beverages to the instant stores, and that the Defendant paid the equipment cost to the stores that acquired the business, the Plaintiff’s assertion is solely based on the written evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the serial number).