beta
Text
Of the parts concerning counterclaims in the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff operated a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the trade name “E” in the voice C building in Chungcheongbuk-gun and D.
B. Around May 2018, the Defendant entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to transfer the instant restaurant’s business to KRW 35 million (hereinafter “instant business transfer agreement”) and paid KRW 5 million on May 21, 2018, and began business at the instant restaurant from May 24, 2018.
The plaintiff transferred a password to the defendant along with the passbook in the name of the plaintiff, the credit card payment of which is deposited, and issued a credit card connected to the passbook.
C. On July 3, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the following agreements on the instant agreement for the transfer of business.
(hereinafter “instant agreement”). A: The Plaintiff and B: Defendant
2. The acquisition price shall be thirty-five thousand won; and
Down payment shall be paid 5,00,000 won to Party A in May 23, 2018.
The intermediate payment shall be paid 5,000,000 won to Gap on August 20, 2018.
Any balance shall be paid to B for 25,000,000 won in January 20, 2019.
3. B shall admit a guarantor (property tax payer) as a guarantor on August 20, 2018 to conduct notarial acts.
Upon completion of notarial acts, A shall transfer the title of E to B.
In case of non-notarial acts, Eul shall be confiscated from Gap, and Eul shall be ordered to restore "E" to its original state.
4. Eul shall be liable for the payment of rents and public imposts from the date on which he actually operated his shop.
The Defendant, around August 2018, pays half of the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2018, and pays the remainder by September 30, 2018, as the Plaintiff is anticipated to pay intermediate payment by August 20, 2018.
While sending the message to the effect that “,” the Plaintiff refused to do so. The Defendant stated to the effect that “to operate a restaurant business only until August 19, 2018,” and the Plaintiff around August 13, 2018.