beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
The Plaintiff entered into an operation agreement on September 17, 2013 with respect to C hotel food room and paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant, which is a return-type investment fund of the nature of the deposit. The Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff in the purchase of food room mistake. Also, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was to pay KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff.
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million to the Defendant was a returned-type investment capital.
Although the defendant also recognized that the remaining 25 million won was the returned-type investment fund, considering the overall purport of the argument in subparagraph 1, the defendant's C hotel shop business right part of the defendant's C hotel coffee business right was sold by means of exchange with the plaintiff's return-type investment fund on February 22, 2014, which became final and conclusive as 25% of the plaintiff's share in the consolidated business of Lestop and coffee, the plaintiff cannot claim that the remaining 25 million won was the return-type investment fund, and the defendant's defense on this point is reasonable.
In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid KRW 5 million to mislead the food room by only a part of subparagraph 4-1 of the evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
The Plaintiff asserted that the agreement entered into around February 22, 2014 (Evidence B (Evidence B (Evidence B) was null and void as an unfair legal act. However, there is no evidence to support that the agreement was a juristic act that considerably lost fairness due to the Plaintiff’s old-age, rash, and inexperience.
In addition, the plaintiff asserts the unfairness of the part related to withdrawal of business participation, partial return of investment funds securing equity, and compensation for damage under Article 6 of the above Agreement. The defendant's defense is not directly related to this part.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.