1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the amount ordered to pay.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff operated a music institute (hereinafter “the instant music institute”) on the second floor of the building in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, with the trade name “D Music Private Institutes” (hereinafter “D Music Private Institutes”).

B. On February 17, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a contract for the transfer of business (hereinafter “this case’s transfer of business”) with the content of transferring the business of the instant music institute to the Defendant in total of KRW 18,000,000 under the name of the deposit and premium for the lease of business (hereinafter “the contract”).

C. From February 18, 2013, the Defendant acquired and operated the instant music private teaching institute from the Plaintiff, but only paid KRW 8,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the transfer price of KRW 18,000 under the instant business transfer agreement, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 10,000,000.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the payment method of the remainder of the transfer price to cover the remainder of the transfer price after deducting the operating expenses of the instant music institute, such as monthly rent, from the original students of the instant music institute from the date of February 28, 2013.

(hereinafter “Agreement on Settlement of Accounts of this case”). 【No dispute exists, entry of Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the entire pleadings.”

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the transfer price of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances, such as settlement under the instant settlement agreement.

B. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion, the amount that the Plaintiff received from the original students in accordance with the instant settlement agreement from February 28, 2013 to August 2013 exceeds the remainder of the transfer price. As such, the transfer price under the instant business transfer agreement was fully paid.

(2) The judgment of the court below is based on the following: Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 11 to 14, and the financial transaction information for the 10th office of the court of the first instance as to the 14th office of the party branch.