beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 1, 2012, the Defendant leased the store Nos. 4 x3Y4 from the Home Plusco Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “The Home Plus”) of Busan Plusco for KRW 10 million, and operated the Home Plusco (hereinafter “E”) with the trade name “E” at the same time.
B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of the right of lease (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant to acquire the above right of lease KRW 45 million between the Defendant and the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant down payment”).
C. After the conclusion of the instant contract, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant that “The Plaintiff operates the instant store in the name of the Defendant on December 2013 and January 2014, and at the same time, the Plaintiff bears the tax during the period, and at the same time deposits the remainder of five million won to the Defendant at the same time as the Home Plus and Electronic Contracts are concluded with the Home Plus.” and operated the instant store.
On December 19, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) signed and sealed an agreement on the transfer of the right of lease with the effect that “the Defendant transferred the lessee’s status to the Plaintiff under the lease agreement entered into with the Home Plus; and (b) the Home Plus shall consent to the Home Plus; (c) the Home Plus did not sign and seal the agreement; and (d) the Home Plus did not proceed with the procedure for approving the transfer of the right of lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
E. On December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The content of the instant contract is too different from the content of the initial contract between the Defendant and the Home Plus, and there is no benefit to deduct various charges. Therefore, the Defendant cancelled the instant contract, and thus, the Defendant was negligent in the operation of the instant store on January 3, 2014.”