beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant concluded a lease agreement and passed 1) The land and parking lot (the entire restaurant; hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) in Overcheon City C.
(D) While operating a restaurant in the name of “D”, around August 201, the operator’s name was placed in the name of the Defendant, and the E and F leased the instant restaurant under the following conditions (hereinafter “instant lease”).
(A) Lease deposit: From August 31, 201 to August 31, 2013, 201, the lease deposit amount: KRW 50 million out of KRW 100 million has been paid by the time of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 50 million has been paid by the end of December 201; KRW 20 million has been paid by the end of December 201; KRW 40 million has been paid by the end of December 201: 1.5 million on September 15, 201; KRW 7 million has been paid from the end of each month; e.g., electricity, water, gas, etc.
2) E and F did not pay to the Defendant the remainder of KRW 50 million among the lease deposit amounting to KRW 100 million by the end of December 201, and KRW 20 million among the remainder of KRW 100 million, and did not pay the monthly rent for several months. 3) The Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement with the E and F on January 20, 201, as the name of the proprietor of the instant restaurant, that the Defendant would be likely to assume the responsibility for public charges, employees’ wages, and the obligation to pay the goods to the customer.
However, E continued to operate the instant restaurant even after the fact, and the Defendant, while managing its sales proceeds, agreed to deduct the Defendant’s unjust enrichment from its operating profit, and to resolve the said debt in succession, as seen earlier.
(A) The Defendant was issued by E with a loan certificate with “all accounts payable, public charges, and employee benefits” as the loan certificate. 5 E delivered the instant restaurant to the Defendant on April 15, 2012, and there was no settlement between the Defendant and the Defendant on the operating income.