beta
Text
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. Upon a counterclaim filed in the trial, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From around September 191, 191, the Defendant began to operate the general restaurant business in the name of the Plaintiff, a birthee, with the trade name called SD, and the Plaintiff acquired the above business from the Defendant on or around December 6, 1995 and operated the said restaurant up to the present day.
B. The Defendant, on January 22, 2007, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on December 2006, 2006, as to the portion of 1/2 shares of E, among the 1/19m2m2 of cement block, cement block, slocket, steel-frame structure, steel-frame structure, steel-frame structure, 188.19m2 of neighborhood living facilities, and cement block block, slock roof, slock roof, etc. (hereinafter “instant land and building”), became a co-owner of the instant land and building along with F.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1, 2, 5 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around February 15, 2007, around 2007, the Plaintiff purchased 1/2 shares out of the Defendant’s shares from the Defendant as KRW 175 million, and paid the purchase price in full to the Defendant on the same day. Accordingly, according to the above sales contract, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for 1/2 shares out of the Defendant’s shares on February 15, 2007 to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion is merely a loan of KRW 175 million, which is paid from the Defendant’s assertion, and did not conclude a sales contract with the Plaintiff on the shares in the instant case.
B. According to the reasoning of the judgment No. 1 and No. 3-1 and No. 2, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 175 million to the Defendant on February 15, 2007. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 175 million to the Defendant with the purchase fund for shares No. 4 and No. 13, as well as the witness of the first instance trial, the witness of the first instance trial, and the witness of the first instance trial.