부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On November 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a franchise agreement on “C store” (hereinafter “instant franchise agreement”) with a Consolidatedcom Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “franchise”) (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and leased the instant restaurant store from D on December 12, 2016 to KRW 60,000,000 as lease deposit.
(hereinafter “instant lease”). B.
The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 60,000,000 from the Defendant on November 30, 2016, because the Plaintiff’s construction cost for the instant restaurant’s interior services was required.
C. On June 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the instant franchise agreement with a franchisor on the grounds of business depression, etc.
On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred the instant restaurant to the Defendant at KRW 60,000,000 for the transfer of business.
(hereinafter “instant transfer of business”). E.
The Defendant paid KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff by means of offsetting the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 60,000 against the Plaintiff, instead of paying the Plaintiff KRW 60,000 to the Plaintiff.
F. On June 20, 2017, the Defendant, upon the transfer of the instant business, succeeded to the lessee status of the instant lease, concluded a new lease contract with D with the lessor.
In a new lease agreement, the plaintiff's claim for the return of lease deposit was entered into by the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] No dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. When evaluating the assets of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff assessed the transfer price of the instant restaurant except KRW 60,000,000 when determining the transfer price of the instant restaurant.
Even if not, the transfer of the business of this case was conducted without the approval of the franchisor, and thus constitutes grounds for invalidation or termination.
Therefore, even if the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case is still vested in the Plaintiff, the Defendant acquired it.