beta
Text
1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 33,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from May 8, 2019 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased and operated the “E” located in Seosan City D (hereinafter “instant business site”) and transferred its operating right to the Defendants in KRW 100 million. The Defendants paid KRW 67 million out of the above transfer price to the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of the transfer price to the Plaintiff KRW 33 million and damages for delay.
2. Determination
A. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap's claims against defendant B, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (each text message and recording book) (the defendant did not submit any document except for each reply with the content that he filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Daejeon District Court, and did not appear at the date of conciliation and the date of pleading of this case), it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred the place of business of this case to the defendant B for KRW 100 million. Thus, the defendant Eul is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of 33 million won, excluding the amount of KRW 67 million paid to the plaintiff, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from May 8, 2019 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the date of full payment, as requested by the plaintiff.
B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the instant business site to Defendant C along with the Defendant, solely on the basis of each of the records of the claim Nos. 1 through 5 (only text messages and recording records between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B) against the Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
(B) In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the other party who actually transferred the instant place of business is Defendant B, and Defendant C is merely the nominal owner of the instant place of business as Defendant B’s omission. Therefore, the claim against Defendant C is without merit.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified.