beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the payment is made in excess of the amount ordered below to be paid to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts of the request;
A. (1) The Plaintiff was operating a restaurant under the joint name with Nonparty C (Plaintiff’s son’s children) at the leased store located in Osan-si (hereinafter “instant restaurant”). However, the Defendant, who was interested in the operation of the restaurant, proposed that the Plaintiff take over and operate the instant restaurant around August 2014.
② On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sublease the instant restaurant and use the goodwill (hereinafter “instant contract”). However, the sublease period from September 29, 2014 to September 30, 2015, and the deposit amount is KRW 8 million to September 30, 2015, and the monthly rent for the goodwill is KRW 4 million (Advance payment on September 1, 201), and the rent for the store that the Plaintiff paid to the lessor is KRW 3,300,00 (3,00,000,000,000 won in the instant contract (Evidence 19) but there is no dispute between the parties, and the Defendant agreed to pay the tax incurred from the operation of the instant restaurant to the Defendant.
③ The Plaintiff transferred the instant check to the Defendant, which was opened for the purpose of running the instant restaurant and one bank account in the name of the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter referred to as the “instant account”) and the instant account.
(B) The card sales generated by the Defendant while operating the restaurant of this case was deposited into the above account. (B)
On September 29, 2014, the Defendant started to operate the instant restaurant by paying the Plaintiff the deposit of KRW 8 million and the monthly rent of KRW 4 million for the first time.
② After the commencement of the restaurant operation of this case, the Defendant was supplied with charcoal necessary for the restaurant operation of this case by the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff was also suffering from the supply of charcoal), and the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in the specific transaction conditions, such as the volume of charcoal to be traded each month, and the price of charcoal.