본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원 2014.09.26 2013나15828

1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:



1. The Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit upon the closure of the restaurant, and that the Defendant actually discontinued the restaurant on June 2014, and thus, the instant lawsuit goes against the agreement to withdraw the lawsuit. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the agreement to withdraw the lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts are without dispute between the parties, and the defendant involved in the operation of H and C restaurant E (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) from December 2, 2010 to October 16, 201, and entered into a contract to directly operate the instant restaurant from H and C to take over the operation of the instant restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”), and registered business under the name of the defendant’s wife’s wife (hereinafter “the instant business takeover contract”), and registered business under the Defendant’s wife’s name.

In the business of the defendant's restaurant operation, the designated person was residing in the business of this case beyond the extent of lending his name and deposit account, and played a leading role in the operation and fund management of the restaurant.

B) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff supplied H and C with a total of KRW 50 million prior to the instant transfer of business, but did not receive the price until the instant transfer of business was entered into (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”).

(C) The Plaintiff became aware of the fact of the instant contract for the transfer of business, and G, an employee of the Plaintiff, found in the instant restaurant on December 16, 201, transferred the obligation, including the content that the Defendant would take over the instant goods payment obligation from C with the Defendant and C, as well as with the Defendant.