beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On February 18, 2008, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to take over the instant danran bar (hereinafter “instant dan”) of the trade name “D” located on the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul District Building C (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant for KRW 167 million, and paid the down payment of KRW 30 million on the same day.
However, as the Defendant was not a lessee of the first floor underground of the instant building, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the contract for acquisition by transfer of the instant dan, and paid the lessor E as the lessee F and G in arrears, and entered into a direct lease contract with E.
In the process, Defendant, F, and G renounced renounced the Plaintiff’s facilities and rights to the instant entertainment bar on condition that the Plaintiff was in arrears, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to the Defendant, etc. to receive succession to the instant entertainment bar business license.
On February 22, 2008, the Defendant drafted a waiver of the right to claim a waiver of the rights to the instant danran tavern.
The Plaintiff was subject to a non-guilty disposition even in the case where the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff’s transfer money, and the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent complaint. However, the Defendant did not think that the Plaintiff was liable to the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant did not state that the Plaintiff filed a claim for the purchase money and received a judgment during the investigation process.
For that reason, the Plaintiff did not include the Defendant in the list of creditors on September 2014, and applied for immunity from Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Hadan9108, 2014, 2014, and 9108. The decision became final and conclusive on March 17, 2015.
Since the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the obligation against the Defendant, the effect of the decision on immunity should also be deemed to affect the obligation against the Defendant. The Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff for the transfer proceeds of the instant dan.