2011Da26445 Loans

○ ○

Sungnam-si

Attorney omitted

Park ○

Seoul

Suwon District Court Decision 201049846 Decided February 15, 2011

March 15, 2012

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the records, at the second date for pleading of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff requested an explanation as to whether the instant claim was made by the full bench for the transfer of business to Seoul ○○○○○ Group (hereinafter “the instant claim”) or for the payment of the loan. At the third date for pleading, the Plaintiff alleged that the instant claim was seeking the payment of the transfer price under the instant transfer of business. Since there is no evidence to deem that the instant claim was changed by a claim for a loan or added a claim for a loan to the cause for a claim, the lower court was justifiable to have deliberated and decided that the instant claim was a claim for the transfer price under the instant transfer of business, and there is no violation of the principle of pleading as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principle as otherwise alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. Based on the evidence of his employment, the court below held that the contract of the business transfer of this case was null and void in violation of good customs and other social order as a contract entered into between the defendant and her husband to operate the business of the instant business of the instant business of the business of the closure with the defendant and the defendant around December 10, 2008, and concluded the business transfer contract of this case to transfer the above business of the closure with 15 million won to the defendant around December 10, 2008. At the time, the defendant acquired the closure of the instant business of this case for the purpose of operating the commercial business of this case as a commercial trade business of this case, not a legitimate cartel, and the plaintiff also knew the purpose of the defendant's business transfer well-known and transferred the existing facilities for the commercial trade business of this case to the defendant as they are, and thus, the business transfer contract of this case constitutes a juristic act with the purpose of "act of arranging commercial sex acts, etc." of the business transfer contract of this case to the other party.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 103 of the Civil Act as alleged in the grounds of appeal

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Nung-hwan

Justices Noh Jeong-hee

Justices Park Byung-hee