beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the Defendants’ assertion, and therefore, it is decided to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The instant main business relationship between Defendant C and F was terminated on or around the end of April 2012. The Plaintiff supplied F with food materials and other goods to F with the opposite contractual party from January 2013 to February 2014. The Plaintiff traded with Defendant C from March 2014, and the Plaintiff paid all the cost of food materials and other goods supplied from March 2014. (2) Defendant B was not a simple title holder of the instant store, and thus, is not a party to the instant contract, and is not a party to the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff is not jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) First of all, comprehensively taking account of the Defendants’ assertion 1) as to the Defendants’ assertion 1, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement in the evidence No. 3, the Defendants’ assertion as to the following facts: (a) from April 2012 to December 2012, the Defendants managed the sales while operating the instant store; (b) around December 2012, F filed a complaint against Defendant C under the charge of embezzlement; and (c) the police began to occupy D and the heart restaurant from that time to that time; and (d) the Defendants received cash sales from December 2012 to January 2014; and (e) it is difficult to view that the said business contract between the Defendants and F was completely terminated on or around April 2012.
In addition, in light of the following facts recognized by the above evidence, even if a partnership agreement on the store of this case was terminated on or around April 2012, it is reasonable to view that F would not intend to continue to operate the store of this case, but F would withdraw from the partnership business relationship and the Defendants would operate the store of this case. Thus, the Defendants still exist.