동업정산금
The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall pay KRW 79,432,352 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from December 1, 2014 to November 9, 2017.
Basic Facts
The plaintiff is a person who has operated the leather sales business in the trade name of "C", and the defendant is a person who has operated the oral malicious processing business in the trade name of "D."
On February 5, 2013, the original Defendant entered into a contract to engage in the business of processing and selling oral music, etc. (hereinafter “instant contract”) and carried out the said business in the name of “E” with the trade name of “E.”
(A) The instant contract was terminated on November 30, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the argument of the parties to the claim for the distribution of the company's property as of the termination of the contract of this case (the cause of the claim in the lawsuit of this case), <1,619,852 won, which is the amount calculated by deducting 13,125,00 won, equivalent to the value of the above company's assets of the above company, from the amount equivalent to 229,489,705 won, among the total value of the above company's assets of this case, the amount calculated by deducting 13,619,852 won, which is the amount calculated by deducting 13,125,00 won, from the amount equivalent to the value of the above company's assets of the above company, from the amount equivalent to 229,489,705 won.
(1) On October 26, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, prior to the statement of the application for change of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim in this case, the amount equivalent to the amount disbursed under the name other than the above company's expenses out of the details disbursed from the bank account of the same company of this case is subject to settlement, and that 1/2 is subject to settlement. However, the above assertion was withdrawn and the purport of the allegation was summarized as above). The total sum of the office deposit and key money of the private business operated by the Plaintiff and the outstanding amount, etc. to be paid from the transaction company of this case, 93,721,978 won is the same business property of the