beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the allegations emphasized or added by the Defendants in this court. Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The purpose of the instant contract is not the mere acquisition of shares in the instant sales store’s business license, but the joint partnership business between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, which are retailers. However, according to the interpretation of relevant provisions, such as the Safety Control and Business of LPG Sales Stores Act, the transfer of part of shares in the LPG sales store is unable to carry on the pertinent business through succession to the status, and the leased of the permitted LPG business itself is not allowed. Therefore, the Plaintiff, who did not succeed to the status of the LPG business entity from the Defendants, was not in itself authorized to lease the instant sales store to the Defendants. Therefore, the part of the instant contract for the purpose of the lease of the instant sales store is null and void because it is for the purpose of the original impossible payment or for the original impossible payment.2) The Defendants paid rent (150 won/km) to the Plaintiff in return for the supply of professional gas from the Plaintiff at a price lower than that of other companies through the instant contract.
The above rent is a kind of profit distribution, which is premised on the supply of the Plaintiff’s professional gas, and if the Defendants separately pay the Plaintiff a profit distribution amount at a low price from other companies than the Plaintiff, if they purchase the professional gas at a low price, it constitutes an excessive unfair transaction terms.
Therefore, the defendants purchase professional gas from other companies, such as Jeju-U.S. Energy, etc., for the period of purchase of professional gas, shall pay rent to the plaintiff according to the contract of this case.