beta
Text
1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 33,518,280, and KRW 26,420,00 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s payment of KRW 33,518,280 on February 14, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C, on July 27, 2009, lent the Plaintiff’s name, operated an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” in Boan-si D, Boan-si. The Plaintiff and the Defendant worked at the instant main points at the time of operation of C.
B. C, while operating the main points of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, had the Plaintiff bear all the expenses, such as taxes and electricity taxes incurred in the future of the Plaintiff, the nominal owner.
C. On March 2010, C transferred the above main points to the Defendant who worked together at the main point of this case.
As in C, the Defendant also lent the Plaintiff’s name to the effect that the Defendant would bear all the expenses, such as taxes and electricity taxes, incurred in the future of the Plaintiff, the nominal owner, and operated the above main points, and reported the closure of the business on September 5, 2010.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit
A. According to the purport of subparagraph 1, Eul's evidence, witness F and C's testimony and arguments, the plaintiff and the defendant held loan claims amounting to KRW 26,420,00, KRW 53,400,00 each around March 2010. However, as C was unable to repay the above loan claims, the plaintiff and the defendant proposed to transfer the above loan claims to C as part of the acquisition price, and the plaintiff and the defendant made a proposal to transfer the right of the main office of this case. When the plaintiff withdrawn the intention to take over the main office of this case, it can be acknowledged that the defendant concluded an acquisition agreement with C to take over the main office of this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff had renounced the above loan claims without the plaintiff's business operation with the main office of this case. Upon considering the fact that C transferred the business rights of the main office of this case to C and acquired the loan claims to the plaintiff and the defendant as part of the acquisition price of C's debt 206, 200, 2006.