beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 17, 201, the Defendant jointly concluded a lease contract with C to the extent that the lease deposit is KRW 20 million, monthly rent is KRW 1.2 million, and the lease term is from August 16, 201 to August 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).
B. From around that time, the Defendant decided to operate the “E” restaurant along with the instant store.
(hereinafter referred to as the "instant trade agreement". (c)
The Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff on March 31, 2013, and paid KRW 3 million on August 10, 2013.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that at the time of the instant agreement with the Defendant at the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 10,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff’s share of the lease deposit of this case from July 2012 and withdraw from the club. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that, after engaging in a club business for two years with the Defendant, the Defendant was paid KRW 23,00,000 as the result of the settlement of facility costs, but did not receive the settlement amount equivalent to KRW 10,000,000 for the lease deposit. 2) In addition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff suffered emotional distress due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the settlement amount as above, and sought compensation for damages of KRW 1
B. We examine the duty to pay the settlement money of KRW 10 million with the first priority in determining 10 million.
With respect to the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 10 million when withdrawing from the partnership relationship around July 2012 at the time of the instant partnership agreement, it is difficult to directly recognize the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge it.
The plaintiff at the time of the Dong business of this case and the defendant 3.