beta
Text
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall pay to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 50,000,000 and its payment from August 17, 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 12, 2012, the Defendant entered into a joint agreement with the effect that the Defendant jointly runs the marriage brokerage business and the food service (specialized rice stores in Vietnam) and jointly distributes profits arising therefrom (hereinafter “instant joint agreement”).
The main contents of the instant joint project agreement are as follows.
Article 1
(a) The place of business intending to operate the marriage brokerage business is Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 11119, D No. 1119, 119;
(b)the place of business intending to operate the formal business is Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government No. 101, the first floor of parcel F, non-Party E;
Article 2 The plaintiff and the defendant are liable for the share of each half of the capital necessary for the operation of the above business, and the plaintiff and the defendant shall be liable for all kinds of taxes and other expenses incurred in the operation of the business after the loan for the operation of the business, interest on the loan, delay damages and other expenses.
Article 5 (1) and (3) The plaintiff and the defendant have a right to half of the profits accrued from the operation of the above business.
Article 6 The plaintiff and the defendant shall be responsible for all accidents and problems arising in the course of operating the above business in proportion to each half.
B. On April 11, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the owner of G, the owner of No. 101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu E-1 Parcel, and with respect to the instant real estate, KRW 24 months from May 2, 2012 to May 2, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 180,000 (the lease deposit was paid to the Defendant’s money), and KRW 5,700,000 (the lease deposit was paid to the Defendant’s money), from May 2012, 201, and operated the specialized point of rice production in Vietnam from May 2012.
C. Around August 2012, the Plaintiff said that the Plaintiff was unable to operate more than the full text point of rice station in Vietnam due to the occurrence of a large number of enemys to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant is the Defendant and the Defendant’s children, the above full text point of rice station in Vietnam.