beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. All the plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim added at the trial.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. up to the death of D) The Defendant is a stock company with the business of wholesale and retailing construction materials at the leisure city. 2) D operated the Defendant as the representative E’s son, and separately operated the F Co., Ltd. F (hereinafter “Council’s seat”).
3) G was a person who had worked as the Defendant’s factory from around 2004, and the Plaintiff was working in the F located in the Government from around 2010, and was working in the F located in the Government and was engaged in crowdfunding in the Defendant factory after having arranged D’s government located in the government. 4) D died at the end of December 2012.
B. 1) The conclusion of the instant lease agreement is 1) If it is impossible to operate the Defendant factory after the death of D, E is the factory of this case to G (hereinafter “instant factory”).
(E) Until the sale of the factory, G recommended the operation of the factory, and on July 25, 2013, G was the owner of the instant factory and its site (E’s spouse).
(1)1,350,000 won (for every year) per annum between the two;
8.30.6750,000 won;
2. A lease contract with the term of 30.30,6750,000 won or the term of 36 months (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
After the conclusion of the instant factory, G commenced the instant factory operation. (1) On August 1, 2013, G leased the said real estate and operated the Defendant’s business from August 1, 2013. (2) G is responsible for and paid taxes imposed on and after August 1, 2013. Other matters are to run under consultation with G and E. (4) Other matters. (2) Special terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement are as follows.
C. G and I’s partnership business 1) Meanwhile, at Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, I proposed that G be engaged in the same business as a corporation it operates on November 2013. G and I have invested KRW 100 million at that time, and a new corporation that is not the Defendant, together with the partnership business (hereinafter “the case”).