beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, from September 6, 2014, as well as Defendant C’s KRW 20,000,000, and its amount.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who operated a mutually “E” restaurant (hereinafter “the instant restaurant”) in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the said restaurant to the Defendants.
B. On the date of the above contract, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000,000 from Defendant B on the date of the above contract, and each written payment from Defendant B on KRW 10,000,000 for KRW 6 months from October 18, 2013.
“A” was drafted as follows: “A evidence of borrowing (Evidence 1-1); “A” with respect to KRW 20,000,000 from Defendant C’s receipt of KRW 20,000,000 as of November 9, 2013 to be deposited within 8 months from the date of receipt of KRW 20,000,000 (Evidence 1-2); respectively.
C. The Defendants transferred the instant restaurant to a third party around August 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts, each of the above loans appears to have been prepared by the Defendants to the Plaintiff regarding the transfer balance of the restaurant in this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 10,000,000 in accordance with the above loan certificate and damages for delay thereof, and Defendant C also has the obligation to pay KRW 20,000,000 in accordance with the above loan certificate and damages for delay.
The Defendants paid KRW 20,00,000 among the transfer proceeds at the time of the transfer of the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff received 30,000,000 won from a liquor company and appropriated it to the instant restaurant transfer proceeds. However, if a liquor company fails to obtain a loan from the liquor company, the Plaintiff would return the instant restaurant again, and the Plaintiff prepared each of the above loan certificates. However, the Plaintiff did not obtain a loan from the liquor company and the Plaintiff did not look at the instant restaurant. Accordingly, the instant restaurant transfer contract was eventually terminated as the Plaintiff’s nonperformance of obligation, and thus, the said loan certificate also becomes effective.