beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant had been operating a chip Internet shopping mall of a woman called “C” prior to the example. From November 11, 2016, the Defendant continued to operate the existing Internet shopping mall after registering its business with the trade name “D”.
B. On October 2016, the Defendant opened and operated a male-type Internet shopping mall in the name of “E”.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's main points of the plaintiff's assertion are selectively asserted to the following purport.
① From November 2016, the Defendant, under the pretext of allowing the Plaintiff to perform the work of the D shopping mall operated by himself, did not grant any benefits to the Plaintiff, and had the Plaintiff take exclusive charge of the work of D shopping mall.
In addition, on January 2017, the defendant requested the plaintiff to lend the operating funds of the said E-O shopping mall that he newly opened.
Accordingly, on January 19, 2017, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 8,204,00 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account as the product input fee, and extended KRW 42,870,260 in total to the Defendant by April 15, 2017, including the transfer of KRW 8,204,00 to the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, by April 15, 2017.
However, the defendant paid only KRW 8,238,00 among the above loans and did not pay the remainder of KRW 34,632,260.
The defendant shall pay the remaining loan 34,632,260 won to the plaintiff.
② The Defendant did not settle the Plaintiff’s profits accrued when operating the Internet shopping mall of the Plaintiff, D, etc. as a partnership business.
The defendant does not specify the amount of revenue generated in the course of operating the plaintiff and Internet shopping mall. Thus, the plaintiff claims 34,632,260 won which has not yet been recovered out of the amount of 42,870,260 won paid in the same business with the defendant in response to the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 7, etc., the Plaintiff paid money for the operation of E shopping mall.