손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C leased from D, its owner, the second floor in Busan Seo-gu E (hereinafter “instant building”), and sublet it to the Defendant. From the second floor of the said building, the Defendant had registered its business in the name of F and operated the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
The plaintiff was an employee at the defendant's restaurant of this case as an employee.
B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to accept the entire restaurant of this case including the sub-lease of the second floor of the instant building (hereinafter “instant underwriting contract”). The said contract includes the total acquisition price of KRW 80,000 (80,000), the deposit money (30,000), and the deposit money (30,000,000) with respect to the “business day” as retirement allowance of “AC (the Plaintiff)” with the Defendant, with the knowledge that it is the end of August 2016 (8/31), and the “contract money” as the retirement allowance of “AC (the Plaintiff).”
The term "each entry" is written.
At the time of the above underwriting contract, the sub-lease period of the second floor of the instant building between C and the Defendant was until September 2016.
C. After December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 45,000,000 in total to the Defendant and KRW 45,000,000 on December 22, 2015, and paid the total acquisition price under the instant underwriting agreement.
(Contract Deposit KRW 5,00,000 shall be substituted by the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, and the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 shall be the remainder of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, at the time of the completion of the restaurant business of the second floor of the instant building, the Defendant decided to directly receive the sublease deposit on the second floor of the instant building.
From January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff operated the instant restaurant. Around May 2016, the Plaintiff received a notice from the Defendant that the instant building will be reconstructed immediately, and thus, the Plaintiff completed the operation of the said restaurant around June 2016, and removed the instant building from the said restaurant.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff on January 2016.