beta
Text
1. The defendant's document written by E by notary public against the plaintiffs is based on the No. 496 No. 496 No. 2017 No. 396.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Plaintiff A borrowed KRW 15 million from the Defendant, a liquor supplier, as operating funds, with the trade name “F.” On June 15, 2017, the joint and several surety for the above loan as Plaintiff B, and repaid KRW 1.5 million each 1.5 million from July 10, 2017 to April 15, 2018 (if the payment of the first installment is delayed, the benefit of the due date shall be lost), and the rate of delay damages shall be 25% per annum (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
B. On July 7, 2017, Plaintiff A repaid the Defendant KRW 5 million out of the above KRW 15 million, and on November 21, 2017, Plaintiff A discontinued the said main points.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul 5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion
A. On September 2017, the Defendant unilaterally suspended the Plaintiff’s supply of alcoholic beverages on the grounds of delinquency in the payment of alcoholic beverages without prior notification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s failure to operate the alcoholic beverage for at least one month was discontinued. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s total loss of KRW 3,9510,000 was incurred due to the disposal of employee’s benefits, food materials, and fixtures.
Therefore, if Plaintiff A deducts KRW 39,510,000 from the remainder of KRW 15,000 remaining after the repayment of KRW 5,000,000 from the debt due to the notarial deed of this case, there is no obligation under the notarial deed of this case. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case should be denied.
B. (1) According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments stated in (1) 1, 3, and 1 through 4, the outstanding amount was accumulated at the time when the Defendant discontinued the supply of alcoholic beverages to the main points of the Plaintiff A’s operation, and there is no circumstance to deem that the Defendant unfairly suspended the supply of alcoholic beverages to the extent that the Plaintiff was liable for tort or nonperformance.