손해배상(기)
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,000,000 and that on August 2017.
1. Basic facts
A. On January 8, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendants jointly agreed to conduct businesses, such as insect breeding and sheep. The Plaintiff and Defendant C invested KRW 5,000,000 in each of them, and Defendant B entered into a partnership agreement with the content that Defendant B would provide KRW 2,000 out of KRW 4,000 in the Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-do as a business site (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”).
B. As a result of the performance of the investment obligation under the instant business agreement, the Plaintiff wired KRW 5,00,000 to Defendant B on February 8, 2017, and Defendant C wired KRW 2,000,000 in the name of Defendant B, the wife of Defendant B on March 6, 2017.
C. On March 28, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the withdrawal from the instant partnership agreement, and currently the progress of the business pursuant to the instant partnership agreement was suspended, and the agreement was de facto reversed.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B delayed the provision of land to be used as a business site, and did not disclose not only the details of expenditure of joint funds for the progress of the business to the Plaintiff. Defendant C did not contribute to the agreed partner amounting to KRW 2,00,000 on March 6, 2017, and did not perform the remainder of KRW 3,00,000. Since the trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was significantly damaged due to the Defendants’ unfaithful attitude, the Plaintiff withdrawn from the instant partnership relationship on March 28, 2017. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and severally are liable to pay KRW 15,00,000, the remaining value of the business property at the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal, which is the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 15,00,000,000, which is the remaining value of the business property at the time of the Plaintiff’s withdrawal, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion that the settlement of the business property was not accepted, the Plaintiff’s claim was not accepted due to the Defendants’ default.