All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed that Defendant B would jointly represent Defendant D’s business, while transferring the automobile maintenance business and 51% of the shares of Defendant D’s business among the business of Defendant D, which he/she was the representative director, to KRW 450 million.

(hereinafter “instant transfer/acquisition agreement”. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant transfer/acquisition agreement, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to deduct the amount of the existing loan amount from the transfer price of KRW 450 million by determining the amount of the existing loan amount as KRW 175 million.

Defendant B was transferred 51% of the shares of Defendant D Co., Ltd. and was registered on the register on August 21, 2014.

From July 17, 2017 to August 16, 2014, Defendant B remitted total of KRW 275 million to the Agricultural Cooperative Deposit Account in Defendant C’s name on ten occasions.

B. As a result of the Plaintiff’s claim for the transfer price against Defendant B, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against Defendant B seeking payment of KRW 300 million for the transfer price under the instant transfer/acquisition contract.

(2017Gahap11910). On November 8, 2017, this court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that “Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 275 million remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 1750 million from the transfer price of KRW 450 million. However, Defendant B’s transfer of the sum of KRW 275 million to Defendant C’s account under the name of Defendant C to the sum of KRW 275 million is in accordance with the Plaintiff’s explicit or implied request, and it is reasonable to deem that the remainder of the transfer contract of this case was fully repaid.”

The plaintiff appealed to the Gwangju High Court on the above judgment.

(2017Na15545) The High Court cited the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance on August 10, 2018, and further, "the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is appropriate."