beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation of this case are as follows: Gap evidence submitted additionally in the court of first instance, which lacks to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion, shall be rejected, and except for addition of the following judgment, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination on addition
A. On December 15, 2012, the Defendant received the investment money directly from the Plaintiff and acquired and transferred the instant restaurant to the Plaintiff. From December 16, 2012 to December 31, 2012, the Defendant merely paid KRW 1,60,000 out of the total sales amount of KRW 9,594,400 to December 31, 2012, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 7,94,400 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff. (2) Even after the Defendant acquired and transferred the instant restaurant’s business to the Plaintiff, the Defendant used the instant restaurant’s deposit account to arbitrarily withdraw part of the Plaintiff’s profits or transfer it to another place. Since the Defendant paid the outstanding amount incurred at the time of operating the instant restaurant by subrogation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff, which is the total amount of KRW 10,341,537.
3) The Defendant recognized the liability related to the restaurant of this case by recognizing and complying with the conciliation in a lawsuit claiming the price of goods filed by F and G, the principal business partner of the instant restaurant, against the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff is also liable to the Plaintiff. (B) Determination 1) As to whether the Plaintiff acquired the restaurant of this case from the Defendant, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million to the Defendant by means of cash transfer, and the remaining KRW 90 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant is not disputed between the parties.
However, the evidence No. 15 is used.