beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant on the recommendation for the operation of the food store; (b) to return the full amount of the investment at the time of liquidation of the relationship between February 27, 2015 to April 5, 2015; (c) paid a total of KRW 27,780,00 to the Defendant; and (d) from July 30, 2012 to May 27, 2015, the Plaintiff provided a total of KRW 19,849,680 to the Defendant through an account in the name of C, D, or E, who is an employee of the Defendant, from July 30, 2012 to May 27, 2015. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 47,629,680 to the Plaintiff.
When concluding the instant partnership agreement, the Defendant agreed to return the Plaintiff’s invested principal when the partnership agreement is terminated, and the Defendant is obligated to return the invested principal to the Plaintiff as the partnership agreement is terminated.
B. The Defendant’s assertion that the partnership business agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Defendant received KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff as the investment deposit, and the Plaintiff would return the investment deposit to the Plaintiff when the partnership business relationship under the above agreement was maintained for not less than one year. As such, the Plaintiff, who did not have any profit separately, discontinued the restaurant and disposed of the house house after the Plaintiff’s closure of the restaurant, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 was waived with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the overdue rent and the management fee for the said store was settled to the Defendant as the responsibility of the Defendant,
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). Moreover, an act of paying money to another person is based on various causes, such as loans for consumption, investment, gift, etc.