약정금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from January 16, 2015 to October 21, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the respective entries and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 1 to 4:
D On August 2, 2013, the Defendant’s litigation cost of KRW 50 million was determined and lent to E on November 1, 2013.
On the other hand, D received respectively a payment guarantee issued by Korea-Japan in order to secure the above loan obligations, and a written statement of performance (No. 2) to receive 100 thrings of G Charnel located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant’s ownership (hereinafter “the instant charnel”).
In addition, H has jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligations at the time.
B. However, upon delay in the performance of each of the above obligations by E and H, D and the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 500 million per the value of the above 100 payment period to the Plaintiff or D by August 15, 2014, when the repayment period for the above loan obligation is extended by April 30, 2014. However, if the obligation is not paid by the due date, a certificate of rights as to the 100 payment period under the above written statement of performance (Evidence A2) was issued until May 15, 2014. Until that time, the Defendant did not issue the above certificate of rights until then agreed to pay 100 million won per the value of the above 100 payment period to the Plaintiff or D by August 15, 2014.
(A) No. 3, hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”)
D On December 1, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the above claims to the Plaintiff, and delegated the notification authority on the assignment of the above claims to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the above transfer at that time, and the above notification reached the Defendant around that time.
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff did not repay the above loan due date extended by E or H. Accordingly, the Defendant did not perform the obligation to issue the Plaintiff a certificate of right to the 100 period of the charnel by May 15, 2014. Thus, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the said certificate of right when the certificate of right is not issued.