beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or determination of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion by this court, and thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
The fourth and fourth parallels of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended from the court of first instance to the "this court".
2. Additional determination
A. On October 2016, H’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from A, the representative director of C, the Defendant’s representative director, intended to sell the Defendant’s factory, etc.; and (b) H and I received the comprehensive transfer of the Defendant’s business; (c) subsequently, H and I jointly operated the Defendant, including I and H’s liability for receiving the acquisition fund for factories, etc.; and (d) accepted the proposal for defects in 50:50; and (c) received the Defendant’s representative director’s right to permit waste treatment, etc. from J, by taking over the Defendant’s right
H and I agreed on November 7, 2016, according to the agreement for internal joint operation of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant joint operation agreement”), around which the Defendant was registered as the representative director of each of the Defendant and H and I. A dispute over the share ratio, etc. on and around December 2016, H and I agreed to terminate the instant joint operation agreement with the effect that “I waives all rights of approximately KRW 130 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,00
According to the above agreement, around December 2016, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 200 million on two occasions as part of the purchase price of the instant scrap machine, and the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to pay the purchase price of the instant scrap machine.
Therefore, the defendant is exempted from liability to the plaintiff.