1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 2, 2018, Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to transfer the restaurant business of “C” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) operated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant at KRW 50 million, including facility costs and equipment costs.

However, since the Plaintiff received only KRW 23 million from the Defendant and did not receive the remainder of KRW 27 million up to now, the Plaintiff sought payment against the Defendant as above KRW 27 million and damages for delay.

B. Although the defendant acquired the instant restaurant business from the plaintiff, the defendant did not have determined the price of KRW 50 million.

The Defendant paid 8 million won of the claim against the Plaintiff (i.e., the amount of KRW 3 million, which was paid by the Plaintiff on February 6, 2018 for the Plaintiff, as the acquisition price of the instant restaurant, to offset the part of the acquisition price of the instant restaurant by the amount of KRW 3 million, which was paid to the Plaintiff on April 27, 2018, and KRW 23 million, including the payment of KRW 10 million on June 21, 2018 and KRW 5 million on July 3, 2018, as the acquisition price of the instant restaurant. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

2. The fact that the Defendant decided to take over the restaurant business of this case from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 23 million as the acquisition price by offsetting the previous claims or paying the direct transfer price, etc. is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, in order to receive the remainder of the acquisition price from the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should have an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the acquisition price of the restaurant business of this case as KRW 50 million.

Therefore, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the fact that the Plaintiff concluded a lease deposit contract for the instant restaurant business, which the Plaintiff paid to the lessor, that the Defendant would return KRW 10 million, and the Plaintiff.