약정금
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 31, 2016 to the date of full payment.
1. On August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff was engaged in restaurant business under the trade name “E” in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and on August 10, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred all of the above restaurant operation rights, business operations, and ownership to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). Under the instant transfer contract, Defendant B agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 65 million in the subsequent payment.
[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 39 million, excluding the remainder of KRW 26 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff among the subsequent payments of KRW 65 million, and damages for delay.
As to this, Defendant B did not properly inform the restaurant underwriter unlike the initial promise, and the monthly sales presented by the Plaintiff and the scheduled construction cost of apartment buildings next to the restaurant are false, and Defendant B entered into the instant transfer contract due to the difference in the amount of the premium, which belongs to the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B entered into the instant transfer contract from the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant B’s defense that the instant transfer contract was cancelled on the ground of the Plaintiff’s deception is not reasonable.
B. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant C operated the above restaurant after the transfer contract of this case and paid part of the transfer price of this case to the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant C is obligated to pay the above subsequent payment jointly with the defendant B. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant C was in a partnership with the defendant B merely because the plaintiff asserted that it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant C was in a partnership with the defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's argument with the defendant C is without merit.
3. Accordingly, Defendant B’s assertion to the Plaintiff as to KRW 39,00,000 and a duplicate of the complaint as sought by the Plaintiff.