1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,00,000 and the interest rate from February 14, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

가. 원고는 대구 달서구 D에서 짬뽕집을 운영하던 사람이다.

B. On November 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to transfer the said restaurant that he/she operated to Defendant B at the price of KRW 60 million.

Of the proceeds, KRW 10 million of the down payment shall be paid at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million shall be paid as of December 10, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 30 million shall be paid in installments for six months from December 30, 2016 to May 30, 2017.

In addition, defendant C provided joint and several sureties with regard to the payment of price.

C. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 12 million among the above down payment and the intermediate payment, but the remainder of the intermediate payment and the remainder are not paid.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff KRW 38 million [the remainder of KRW 8 million due to the failure to pay the unpaid amount shall be KRW 30 million (the interest due to the division obligation and the Defendant’s nonperformance).

[2] The Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 14, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint.

B. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim is unfair, since the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendants on the ownership of the restaurant facilities and the sales of the restaurant, and the Plaintiff also received facility cost of KRW 10 million from the cafeteria lessor and again received the premium from the Defendants.

There is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff deceivings the Defendants on the ownership or sales of equipment.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was provided with the pilot facility from the lessor only with the statement of Eul evidence No. 1, and even if the Plaintiff was provided with the pilot facility from the lessor, the interpreter.