약정금
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. Grounds for the court's explanation in this part of the basic facts are, in addition to the modification of the part as follows, only the part as to the third side of the judgment of the first instance and the part as to the second side of the judgment.
A. Since part of the entry is the same, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
“4) On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff withdrawn the instant lawsuit and the instant provisional disposition. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation in its name on May 8, 2015 after completion of the instant loan, and again completed the registration of ownership transfer for the persons designated by the Plaintiff regarding 501 and 502 out of the loan 502 on the same day. (5) Of the loan 201 among the loan 201, a collateral security was established with the maximum debt amount of KRW 840 million on May 8, 2015 as the debtor, the Defendant, and the Ulsan East Eastdong Credit Cooperative. However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff in accordance with the instant agreement.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant obtained the instant loan from a financial institution as collateral, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement.
B. Defendant’s assertion 1) The instant agreement is that the Defendant would pay KRW 90 million to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant would receive a loan from a financial institution as collateral. However, although the said agreement is newly stated on May 8, 2015, it is for the Defendant’s payment of the construction price obligations, etc. that have already occurred, and it is merely for the Defendant’s payment of the construction price obligations, etc., and the right to collateral security regarding the loan that the Defendant received by offering the instant land as collateral was transferred to the register of the said lending. Therefore, the said agreement cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled. Accordingly, the instant agreement cannot be deemed to have been fulfilled due to an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act or declaration of intent by coercion under Article 110 of the Civil Act.