부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as follows, except for adding a judgment on a claim selected by this court, such as “additional Judgment on Selective Claim” under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, it is also cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination as to selective claims
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with F and E businesses, who is the name of the instant permission, and the Defendant was unable to obtain the transfer of the instant permission from F. Therefore, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain the transfer of the instant permission due to the Defendant’s fault.
Therefore, through the delivery of the statement of grounds of appeal of this case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant cancel the agreement to transfer the title of permission of this case. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 97,601,730 out of the withdrawn deposit KRW 100,601,730 without the transfer of the title of permission of this case, and the delay damages therefrom as compensation for damages
B. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, 4-1, 4-2, and 1-1 of the evidence No. 1-2 of the judgment, the judgment of the court below that the Defendant rendered a decision that “the Plaintiff, who entered into a business transfer contract with C and E, acquired the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant,” and that the Defendant was holding in the name of F in the name of F in order to secure the Defendant’s claim against C, and that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 100,601,730 to the Defendant at the same time as the Defendant performed the transfer procedure for the name, telephone number name, subscriber’s name, and vehicle name.” The Plaintiff asserted that the transfer of the title of the business establishment of E was simultaneously performed, but the above defense was not accepted, according to these facts.