logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.17 2019가단531284
정산금 청구의 소
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) and the Defendant, around January 2015, invested KRW 30 million in each of them, and entered into an agreement on the same business (hereinafter “instant business agreement”) with each of them to operate a refined restaurant together and divide profits therefrom into half, and opened on March 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the Defendant, opened the refined restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with its trade name “D” in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

(2) After the successful operation of the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, on early 2017, operated the Seocho-gu Seocho-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, which is called “F” (hereinafter “instant F”).

(3) On September 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) transferred the instant restaurant to G around KRW 88 million (i.e., the lease guarantee paid to the lessor of the instant restaurant building KRW 68 million); and (b) terminated the instant agreement on the instant restaurant.

(4) Although 934,061,606 won (Sales 1,196,361,606-262,300,000) was incurred during the period of operating the instant restaurant, the Defendant paid only KRW 45,237,00,00, which is part of the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 467,030,80, among them, to the Plaintiff, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 421,793,803 (=467,030,803-45,237,000).

In addition, even though the Defendant received 88 million won of the transfer price of the instant restaurant from G, the Defendant did not pay 44 million won, which is the Plaintiff’s share, to the Plaintiff.

(5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 465,793,803 (=421,793,803, 444,000,000) with the settlement money following the termination of the instant business agreement on the instant restaurant.

However, the plaintiff is seeking the payment of KRW 200 million, which is part of the plaintiff.

B. (1) According to the respective statements of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the plaintiff and the defendant objection in accordance with the instant trade agreement.

arrow