beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 5% per annum from February 15, 2014 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From April 2012, the Defendant, as the owner of D Commercial Building 102 located in Masung City, operated the “E” franchise store at the same place (hereinafter “instant store”).
January 12,290,200 won 17,369,800 won for February 15,806,740 won for July 14,740,700 won for March 20,439,020 won for August 12,575,100 won for April 27, 354,600 won for September 14, 14,674,80 won for May 23, 701,00 won for May 23, 200
B. On October 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sought a person to take over the instant store through Friend F; (b) received comments on the instant store from the Defendant; and (c) sought an explanation about the instant store.
At the time, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of the sales in 2013, which were entered in the 2013s of the instant store (referring to programs and devices for the registration, settlement, compilation, inventory, customer management, etc. of sales) and explained to the Plaintiff that the percentage of cash in the sales was 40%, and that the percentage of the card was 60%. The monthly sales in 2013 presented by the Defendant are as listed below.
C. On November 4, 2013, the Plaintiff decided to take over the instant store based on the data on the sales amount, etc., concluded a real estate right transfer contract with the Defendant and the store of this case, under which the premium was KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from November 25, 2013 to November 24, 2017, and entered into a commercial lease contract with the Defendant and the store of this case as to the real estate right transfer contract with the premium amounting to KRW 100,000
(2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 10 million out of the premium and the deposit for lease to the Defendant on the date of the contract, and KRW 5 million on November 25, 2013, the remainder premium of KRW 90 million and KRW 45 million of the lease deposit, according to the terms of the contract.
On November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff operated the instant store by being handed over by the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant manipulates the cash sales data of the store of this case.