beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff transferred to the defendant a 2 restaurant located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dcafeteria (hereinafter referred to as "the store of this case") on May 28, 2015, to receive KRW 40,00,000 as premium. Accordingly, it is recognized that the defendant remitted 30,749,000 won to the plaintiff on May 28, 2015, excluding the outstanding amount, etc. from premium.
In addition to the premium of KRW 40,000,000, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50,000,000, which is the amount equivalent to the lease deposit of the instant store, from the Defendant as the price of the instant store. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant did not pay the above KRW 50,000,000, and claimed against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 50,000,000 and its delay damages.
In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 50,000,00, which is the amount equivalent to the lease deposit of the store of this case from the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the order to submit financial transaction information as of April 28, 2020 to the E-bank Receipt Office of this Court, the Plaintiff prepared and issued a receipt of March 25, 2015 to the effect that “F, a lessor of the said 2-point shop, was returned KRW 50,000,000,” and that F’s face value KRW 50,000,000 was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account on April 3, 2015. In light of the circumstance that the Plaintiff did not explain the circumstance that the said check was deposited in the Plaintiff’s account, the Plaintiff appears to have received KRW 50,00,00 from the lessor, while transferring the instant store to the Defendant, and received KRW 50,000 from the lessor, which was returned from the lessor.
The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.