1. The defendant shall pay 39,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 36% per annum from September 20, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

The defendant's right of defense prior to the merits asserts that the plaintiff is not a party to the case in which the plaintiff claims payment under the restaurant business transfer contract.

However, in a lawsuit seeking monetary payment as a substitute, as long as the plaintiff asserts that he/she is a party to the lawsuit as the right holder, there is no ground for the defendant's prior defense on the merits.

Basic Facts

The husband C of the plaintiff's husband C and D developed F while operating the corporation E.

C At the time of January 2015, C entered into an agreement between D and D operating company G with C and D to supply D with F, and D to door-to-door sales through its own company.

However, if the door-to-door sales of F is not well good, C and D decided to sell hot spring water while directly operating a restaurant instead of closing door-to-door sales.

According to the above decision of the joint operation C and D between the Plaintiff and D, the Plaintiff and D agreed to operate a hot spring specialized restaurant by jointly investing around May 2016.

At this time, business registration shall be made in the name of the plaintiff, and the operation shall be entrusted to D.

Accordingly, on May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and D, under the name of the Plaintiff, leased the first floor store of the Daejeon Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City I to KRW 15 million and KRW 1.6 million monthly rent. On June 20, 2016, the Plaintiff and D opened a restaurant with the trade name “J” at the said store.

However, although the above restaurant operation has not been properly operated, there have been discussions between the plaintiff and the defendant about who will enjoy, will arrange to operate the restaurant in the future, and how to organize the partnership, it has not been resolved.

During the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the transfer of business rights between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff and the defendant, who had been in charge of the main room at the time of the joint business, had been operating the

The plaintiff and the defendant on July 29, 2016 are the plaintiff.