beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest thereon from June 2, 2010 to October 8, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has operated a singing room and an entertainment tavern in the name of “D” and “E” (hereinafter referred to as “E, etc.”) on the second floor of the 3rd floor of the 3rd floor of the Seosan-si, Seosan-si.
B. On June 2, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the acquisition of all human and material businesses, including KRW 39 million, lease deposit amount of KRW 8 million, fixtures, liquor, etc. from the Plaintiff, to E, etc., with the total amount of KRW 500 million.
C. The Defendant paid KRW 47 million to the Plaintiff by June 1, 2010, which is the remainder payment date.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The argument and the key issue asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 30 million for the transfer of business, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff reduced KRW 30 million out of the transfer of business.
The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff reduced the amount of KRW 30 million out of the transfer of business to the Defendant.
3. In a lawsuit seeking the prohibition of competitive business between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that the transfer price of the business in this case was KRW 500 million, the plaintiff had the plaintiff cancelled the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage that had been established on the defendant's apartment on October 31, 201, and the witness F appears to have testified from an objective point of view compared to the witness G who is the plaintiff's husband (the testimony of the witness G is difficult to be believed).
However, in litigation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the prohibition of competitive business, the instant amount of transfer of business does not dispute as a key issue or requirement, and one year and four months have passed since the date of cancelling the registration of creation of a mortgage was more than the date the remainder of the time when the registration of creation of a mortgage was cancelled, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the said amount was paid on the ground that all the remainder agreed to cancel the registration of creation of a mortgage was
In addition, according to the records of Gap evidence No. 5 (Recording) submitted by the plaintiff, the records are examined.