손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Judgment” as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added at the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the court of first instance. Accordingly, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. On June 2018, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the impossibility of performing the said obligation, since Defendant B could not perform the instant business transfer contract by transferring the name of the business operator of the instant store and the claim for the refund of lease deposit to Defendant C.
In light of the Defendants’ relationship and the existing operational form of the instant store, etc., the Defendant C’s transfer of the name, etc. of the instant store from Defendant B appears to have been difficult to manage the name, etc. due to Defendant B’s health reasons. However, in light of the Defendants’ relationship and the existing operational form, etc., it cannot be deemed that the instant business transfer contract has reached an impossible status in light of social norms or transaction practices. ② even before June 2018, Defendant C was in the position to exercise the substantive right to the operation or disposition of the instant store, and the Plaintiff also asserted in the first instance trial that the Plaintiff was the actual party to the instant contract, ③ the Plaintiff and E did not pay a monthly business amount of KRW 4 million from December 2018 to the Defendants according to the instant business transfer contract, and the Plaintiff and E did not receive the instant business transfer contract from Defendant C on January 30, 2019, or received the instant business transfer of KRW 5 million from Defendant C’s business deposit.
It is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (in addition to these circumstances, it would be the refusal of performance where there is a reason attributable to the Defendants.