정산금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Around August 2007, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) around February 2009, at the clothing retail store (hereinafter “D”) of the trade name “D” operated by the Defendant in Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant store”); and (b) around February 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant: (c) upon receiving the Defendant’s partnership business system, that “the Defendant provides the instant store; (d) all the powers pertaining to the said store’s business are responsible for and manage the Plaintiff; and (e) distribution of the profits accrued from the operation of the said store is 50:50” (hereinafter “instant partnership agreement”); and (e) the partnership relationship under the said partnership agreement is referred to as “instant partnership”).
The Defendant, before entering into the instant partnership agreement with the Plaintiff on September 25, 2006, set the instant store from E on the lease term from January 15, 2007 to January 14, 2009, as the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million and KRW 4.5 million per month, respectively (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), extended the lease period, and used the said store.
From February 9, 2009, the Plaintiff started the clothing sales business at the instant store, and around that time, he re-written a lease contract under the instant lease contract with the lessee under the name of the Plaintiff, and completed business registration in the name of the Plaintiff regarding the said store.
Then, the plaintiff paid 4.5 million won to the defendant around February 2009, and 4.5 million won around March 2009, respectively. Meanwhile, since April 2009, the plaintiff and the defendant paid 4.5 million won per month to the defendant with regard to the distribution of the profits under the contract of the same case, the plaintiff and the defendant paid 4.5 million won per month to the defendant and changed the contents of the contract.
From around 2013, the Plaintiff experienced conflicts with the Defendant in relation to the operation of the store of this case, and around March 2013, expressed the Defendant’s intent to withdraw from the association of this case.
The Defendant’s name as to the instant store on March 21, 2013 is the Defendant’s name.