beta
Text
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally against Plaintiff A, KRW 108,685,510, and KRW 96,217,900, and each of them.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Defendant E is working as a brokerage assistant at the real estate brokerage office operated by Defendant D, a licensed real estate agent. On June 2013, Defendant D’s “J” restaurant located in Gu/U.S. I (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).
The proposal was made to Defendant D to directly operate the instant restaurant. Accordingly, Defendant C, D, and D agreed to jointly operate the instant restaurant. (2) Defendant C, D, and G, respectively, invested KRW 60 million in the amount of KRW 30 million in accordance with the investment agreement with Defendant E, and Defendant F invested KRW 100 million in accordance with the investment agreement with Defendant E. The Defendants and K invested KRW 23% in the amount of KRW 100 million. The Defendants and K set the distribution ratio of operating profits to Defendant C/E 23%, Defendant D2%, Defendant G22%, and Defendant F 10%.
Defendant E did not separately pay contributions, but the Defendants considered Defendant C and E as a couple when calculating the distribution ratio.
B. Around August 5, 2013, the instant restaurant commenced its business. Defendant C registered its business with the name of “J” and was in charge of managing the funds of the instant restaurant in its own name. Defendant E served as president together with Defendant D, and managed the entire restaurant of this case. Defendant F was in charge of the duties of supplying and receiving food materials as the main restaurant of the instant restaurant. Defendant G, as a general manager of the instant restaurant, was in charge of ice, purchasing and inspecting goods, and managing the restaurant. Defendant G received non-scheduled business profits from September 2013 to February 2014.
However, since February 2014, when the enemy of the instant restaurant accumulated, the Defendants discussed whether to discontinue the instant restaurant around August 2014. At that time, Defendant G and F may recover when lowering the monthly rent and reducing the cost, and the Defendants agreed to continue to operate the instant restaurant.
C. The restaurant of this case.