beta
Text
1. As to KRW 63,00,000 and KRW 25,000,00 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from October 1, 2018.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff operated a tax accounting corporation C. On November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer ownership of 50% of the Plaintiff’s bookkeeping company owned by the Defendant from December 1, 2009 to the Defendant from December 1, 2009, and the Defendant paid KRW 750,000 per month to the Plaintiff in return.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 79,500,000 and KRW 750,000 per month from October 1, 2018 to September 30, 2018.
However, since the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant on November 30, 2009, the Defendant is obligated to pay the agreed amount calculated at the rate of KRW 59,50,000 (= KRW 79,500,000 – KRW 20,000) and KRW 750,00 each month from October 1, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant agreed to pay 750,000 won per month in return for taking over the bookkeeping company from the Plaintiff as a price for taking over the bookkeeping company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Even if the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 750,000 per month to the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, this is premised on the joint management of the tax accounting corporation C, as seen in the evidence No. 1, as seen by the Plaintiff, and thus, the completion date of the payment is until December 2012, which is closed by the tax accounting corporation C.
Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claim for the agreed amount is a commercial claim because it was caused by the Plaintiff, a merchant, and the Defendant’s commercial activity, and the five-year extinctive prescription applies. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on October 12, 2018, it was obvious that five years have passed thereafter, the said agreed amount claim expired due to the completion of the extinctive prescription.
Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's main claim.
2. In full view of the judgment on the counterclaim claim No. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s judgment on November 30, 2009 on the counterclaim to the Plaintiff on November 30, 200.