beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 90,066,879 for each of the Plaintiffs and each of them, respectively, from August 26, 2016 to January 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 20, 2014, Defendant D entered into a franchise agreement with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant franchise business company”) on the store “G stores” (hereinafter “instant franchise business company”). Then, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered into a contract on May 26, 2014 to jointly operate the instant store (hereinafter “instant franchise business agreement”), setting the respective share ratio of the Defendants at 20%, and setting the respective share ratio of the Defendants at 30%.
B. Accordingly, around that time, the Plaintiffs contributed each of KRW 172 million as investments (i.e., KRW 860 million x 20/100 x 20/100). Since July 2014, the instant store was opened and operated. The period of the Dong business contract expired on May 25, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment of this Court
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The Agreement on the Trade of this case is a special agreement clause (hereinafter "special agreement clause").
(2) According to Article 7 of the Special Agreement, the Defendants continued to operate the store of this case, which is the expiration date of the period of the operation of the store of this case, and thereafter, the Defendants are entitled to pay KRW 172 million each of the same business settlement amount calculated based on the property status of the association of this case as of May 25, 2016, which is the end date of the operation of the store of this case. (2) According to Article 1 of the Special Agreement asserted by the Defendants, the business contract of this case shall continue to exist after the commencement of the business and the completion of the relevant procedures until the closure of the business, and the closure of the business shall be determined by an agreement among the partners. Thus, there was no dispute between the original Defendant and the Defendant on October 29, 2017.
Therefore, at the time of October 29, 2017, the settlement of accounts should be calculated based on the property status of the association of this case.