beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 1, 2013 to August 12, 2013, and the next day.
Reasons
The Plaintiff and the Defendant engaged in the business of operating the beer house in Gangnam-gu Seoul from January 2012 to October 2012, and the occurrence of mutual conflicts in the course of operating beer house and decided to terminate the beer house business around October 2012. In the process, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,000 as of October 30, 2012, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,00 to the Plaintiff within six months from the agreed date on October 30, 2012 by adding the overall purport of pleading evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1, and the Plaintiff claims for 42,00,000,000 as the instant lawsuit, and damages for delay pursuant to the said agreement.
In addition to the above agreed amounts, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should have embezzled out of the partnership business relationship, but did not add to the claim of this case. The Plaintiff does not want to cancel or invalidate the above agreement, which forms the basis of the claim of this case, and to make a new settlement by calculating the total sales, each embezzlement, etc. among the partnership business relations.
Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the money to the plaintiff according to the above agreement.
As to this, the defendant has caused damage to the defendant by embezzlement, etc. of sales of the above beer's house among the businesses, and therefore, the defendant has a defense that the amount should be offset from the plaintiff's claim amount.
On the other hand, the defendant presented the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 on the basis of his argument. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above evidence alone, such as this case’s sentence No. 33137(b) of Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office 2014, which held that the money alleged by the defendant as embezzlement was used for the partnership, etc. while the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant embezzled the sales amount to be reverted to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support it. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is difficult to accept.
In addition, the defendant is also the defendant.