beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 190,009,010 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from June 2, 2015 to June 25, 2015.
Reasons
. In addition, the instant partnership relationship was terminated on June 30, 2013, and the family affairs were not terminated.
Even if the amount of dividends should be determined based on the actual profit accrued after July 1, 2013, and the defendant's total profit from July 20, 2013 to May 31, 2015, since the total profit accrued from July 20, 2013 to May 31, 2015, the amount of dividends that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff shall not exceed the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the above amount, and further, the amount of dividends that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff should be deducted from the above amount of dividends, retirement pay paid after the defendant's sole opening of business, repair expenses of the store of this case, and deposits for the store of this case
The gross proceeds of dividends of the total sales revenue for the year* The gross proceeds of 2010 742,200,000 302,144,000 422,056,000 211,028,000 187,028,028,028,000 301 764,849,0000 301,227,200 463,62,622,00 231,81,000 207,811,000 207,811,000 2071,408,00276,446,000 276,962,000,000 397,481,000 x 17381,000 / 200 / 201 of the annual proceeds of dividends /2000
3. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to distribute operating profits from July 1983 to 5:5, and jointly operate a D cafeteria on or around July 2013, while the Defendant, upon the renewal of the store lease agreement, operated the D cafeteria independently by excluding the Plaintiff. As can be seen, the Plaintiff and the Defendant bear the obligation to distribute operating profits to the other party pursuant to the instant business agreement. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are entitled to seek payment of the amount equivalent to their share of operating profits that the Defendant acquired by operating the D cafeteria solely against the Defendant based on the profit distribution agreement.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.
4. Whether the partnership business of this case is terminated or not, the plaintiff and the defendant contribute a certain amount of funds to each other.