beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) invested the facilities and operating rights of the Defendant; and (b) entered into a partnership agreement with the Defendant and C to jointly operate the restaurant in the name of “E” in Jeju City for three years; and (c) concluded a joint operation agreement with the Defendant and C to distribute the profits therefrom.
B. On September 2013, after the conclusion of the above contract, the Defendant agreed that C and C shall pay KRW 50,000,000 to the end of the contract, and the Defendant shall acquire the above restaurant’s business license from the Defendant, or shall not acquire the above restaurant’s business license, and shall have the right to refund KRW 30,000,000 investment from the Defendant.
C. On August 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for refund of KRW 30,000,000 investment to the Defendant to resolve the partnership with the Defendant; and (b) notified the Defendant of the fact around that time; (c) on April 2016, transferred the business rights, etc. of the said restaurant to a third party; and (d) had a third party operate the said restaurant from that time.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the above partnership agreement between the defendant and C was concluded on April 2016. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff who acquired the above claim for refund of investment amount of KRW 30,00,000 and delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.
(A) The Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for delay damages from September 5, 2015, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said claim for delay damages has arrived before April 30, 2016, and therefore, no ground exists to deem that the said claim for delay damages has been due. 3. The Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages from September 5, 2015 to April 30, 2016 is with merit within the scope of the said recognition.