1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff purchased a fitness from C that was prepared to operate the E Sports Center (hereinafter “instant sports center”) on the second floor of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant sports center”) and provided C with the request of C to pay the price, and purchased the fitness equipment equivalent to KRW 30 million.

B. On February 7, 2014, C drafted and issued to the Plaintiff a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the purport that a notary public would repay the amount of KRW 30 million from No. 167, 2014 to the Plaintiff by March 7, 2014.

C. The Defendant transferred the instant sports center’s business. D.

The defendant remitted 20 million won to the account of G, his father, and remitted 10 million won to the account of his wife H, the punishment of his wife C.

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

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant acquired the business of the sports center of this case and acquired C’s obligations to the Plaintiff.

However, since the defendant paid only KRW 20 million out of the above KRW 30 million, it is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 10 million to the plaintiff and delay damages.

B. Defendant C’s KRW 30 million was known to be the obligation to J, and the Defendant deposited KRW 20 million in G’s account and KRW 10 million in I’s account according to the direction of J and repaid the said obligation in full.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the testimony and arguments of the witnesses C and J before the judgment, C’s obligation to the Plaintiff is the obligation related to the business of the sports center of this case, and the Defendant can be recognized as having taken over the said obligation while acquiring the business of the sports center of this case from C.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s transfer of KRW 10 million to the I’s account may be deemed a repayment to the Plaintiff. Rather, according to the testimony of the witness C at the trial of the Party C, the Defendant would make the I’s proposal 10 million.