beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a company established to operate the performance hall business, and the Defendant is an investment association established to invest in the cultural business, and the Nonparty Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Korea”) is a company that operates and rents the performance hall specialized in the popular music, which is “Mice”.
On September 17, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the acquisition of bonds, etc., convertible bonds, and 2,500 shares, which the Defendant acquired against the non-party company as KRW 5,232,00,000 (hereinafter “instant contract”). On September 17, 200, the Plaintiff entered into a performance hall operation entrustment agreement with the effect that the non-party company entrusts the Plaintiff with the operation of the performance hall, and the Plaintiff operated the performance hall pursuant to the said contract.
However, when the Plaintiff was unable to pay part of the transfer price under the instant contract from around 2012, it was prepared on June 26, 2014 with respect to the payment for unpaid transfer price and the payment for subrogation, etc. (hereinafter “instant implementation agreement”). The main contents are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff guaranteed the Plaintiff’s right to manage the non-party company instead of paying the payment for unpaid transfer price by a given period; (b) the Defendant interfered with the Plaintiff’s normal management affairs, such as interfering with the Plaintiff’s employees in carrying out the business of opening performance halls and sponsoring the non-party company; and (c) the Plaintiff was unable to pay the land use fee under the instant implementation agreement.
On September 11, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant contract, and filed a lawsuit seeking the return of the bonds, convertible bonds, and shares that the Plaintiff had already received, and the Defendant won all of them.
However, the contract of this case is still in existence, and even if the contract of this case has been terminated.