약정금 청구의 소
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne respectively by each party.
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff and the defendant added the following judgments as to the allegations made at the trial of the court of first instance. Thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The addition;
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the sum of KRW 10,623,00,000, such as the money purchased by the Defendant prior to the completion of the business and disbursed or transferred to D under the name of gold value or private capital, and the money transferred to E, should be deducted from the product purchase amount disbursed for the business of this case.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant used the above money for personal use or for other businesses only with the descriptions of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 9, 22, 23, 25, 26, and 29 (including virtual numbers) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is not acceptable.
B. As the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the ratio of profit distribution to 50:50, the Defendant asserts that the ratio of loss is presumed to be 50:50 pursuant to Article 711(2) of the Civil Act, and that the Plaintiff would equally bear the expenses with the Defendant.
However, Article 711(2) of the Civil Act provides that if parties to a partnership agreement set the ratio of distribution only one of the profits or losses, the ratio of distribution of profits and losses may be set differently from the above provisions in the partnership agreement, and the ratio of distribution of profits and losses should not be equal.
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to adjust the apportionment ratio by reporting the Defendant’s burden of expenses other than the initial purchase cost of the instant product and the subsequent sales, and it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff newly agreed or consented to bear all the expenses with the Defendant during the instant business as 50:50, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.