beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the Appointed C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants”) agreed to pay KRW 100,000,000, out of KRW 230,000,00 as a result of the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant restaurant, to the Plaintiff on November 20, 2015, in order to raise money necessary to take over the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) under the name of “E” located in the Busan East-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “E”), which is located in the Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter referred to as “instant restaurant”). The Defendants agreed to pay KRW 3,00,000 per month to the Plaintiff.
(hereinafter “instant agreement”)
B. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to the transferor of the instant restaurant. The Defendants acquired the said restaurant by transfer and commenced business from December 2015.
C. The Defendants paid KRW 9,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff, each of which was KRW 3,000,000 on December 31, 2015, February 1, 2016, and February 26, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including virtual number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received KRW 3,00,000 per month from the Defendants’ profits, and entered into an investment agreement with the Defendants that received principal after two years thereafter, and paid KRW 100,000 to the Defendants. However, the Defendants did not pay the profits that they would terminate the investment agreement after paying the profits only three times from December 2015 to February 2016. Since the Defendants’ notice of termination is not effective, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 3,00,000 per month to the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement. (ii) The instant agreement by the Defendants did not specify the time limit, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion was terminated by notifying the Plaintiff of termination on February 29, 2016 and returning the investment amount of KRW 100,000.
Therefore, the instant agreement is based on the premise that it is valid.