beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The total cost of the lawsuit is the Counterclaim Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
(1) The plaintiff is a person of C in the real estate brokerage business, and the defendant is a police officer as C's relative.
(2) C leased a 156m2 (156m2) out of the 1st floor of the building in Gwangju-gu D (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, and acquired the said restaurant, and later, if the new lessee appeared, C would receive the premium and obtain profits from the transfer of the said restaurant.
Upon accepting C’s recommendation, the Defendant leased the instant building from F, L, M, and N on February 16, 2016 by setting the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 220 million (including value-added tax), from February 16, 2016 to February 16, 2018, and by paying KRW 40 million for E around that time.
(3) C loaned the business registration name of the restaurant operated in the instant building (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff consented thereto.
(4) The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant that the instant building was transferred to the Defendant as KRW 10 million (including value-added tax) and monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million (including value-added tax). On March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff registered the instant building as its place of business with the trade name “G” as its place of business.
(5) The instant restaurant was operated from February 2016 to December 2016.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3 and 4, witness Eul's testimony and the purport of the whole argument of the court of first instance as to the purport of the plaintiff's argument that the defendant lent the name of the business of the restaurant of this case from the plaintiff to operate the restaurant of this case and agreed to pay the debts arising under the plaintiff's name in relation to the operation of the restaurant of this case. Since the plaintiff bears the obligations of 14,317,879 won in total as shown below in relation to the operation of the restaurant of this case, the defendant bears 14,317,879 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.