권리양도금반환청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 3, and Eul's testimony as a whole:
D Around September 1, 2012, D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”) which is an entrusted business operator under the entrusted business contract between D Co., Ltd. and E (hereinafter referred to as “E”) agreed to enter into an entrusted business contract under the terms of entrusting the operation of F University Gamper H building cafeteria (hereinafter referred to as “instant car page”) in the restaurant of the F University Gamper H building, F University Iamper J building in the restaurant, and F University G Camper K building in the K building (hereinafter referred to as “instant entrusted business contract”), and the term of the contract shall be two years from the date of conclusion of the contract, and may be automatically extended one year in cases where both parties have not expressed their intent to terminate the contract two months prior to the expiration of the term.”
(Article 3). (b) of the Agreement on Entrusted Operation of this case
Around September 28, 2012, the Defendant entered into an entrustment management agency contract between E and the Defendant with the purport that E recognizes the status of the operator of the instant car page entrusted by E as above, and operated the instant car page from around that time.
C. (i) On August 9, 2013, the Defendant asked C, a broker, to search for the assignee to transfer the instant carpet, and C introduced L to the Defendant around November 2013, around the transfer contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the consignment management agency contract between the Plaintiff and E.
[Attachment L] around November 2013, decided to take over the operating right of the instant carpet from the Defendant, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10,000,000, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was introduced to C due to the occurrence of the circumstances in which the instant car page cannot be operated.
Consolidatedly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant around February 26, 2014.