beta
(영문) 대구고등법원 2017.12.20 2017나22866

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

The reasoning of the court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except in the following cases: 3. The defendant's defense of the court of first instance is stated in the reasoning of the judgment. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Supplementary Use】

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the Defendant’s defense 1) The Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff on the period of construction, including extension of the Plaintiff’s building owned by the F, instead of performing the obligations under the instant written statement against the Plaintiff. 2) According to the agreement, the Defendant brought about approximately KRW 208,560,00 (= approximately KRW 183,560,000,000,000, which was paid in cash to the construction business operator, around June 2013.

If the Defendant deducts 53,200,000 won from the Plaintiff among the above construction cost, the Defendant would have spent 15,360,000 won as construction cost for the Plaintiff (=208,560,000 won - 53,200,000 won) for the Plaintiff.

3) Therefore, the debts of the instant notes were entirely extinguished by accord and satisfaction. Even if so, since the construction cost incurred by the Defendant for the Plaintiff is the amount that the Plaintiff would have to receive reimbursement from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement of the said construction cost against the Plaintiff is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim on the same amount as that of the instant notes against the Defendant. B. B. On June 2013, the Defendant, around June 2013, extended the construction work, etc. (hereinafter “the instant construction work”).

A) The facts that introduced G for a construction business operator, and that construction business operator G carried out the construction project on the above building do not conflict between the parties. However, in light of the following points, it is difficult for B to believe B’s testimony on each of the facts certificates and the witness G of the G and I’s trial, which are consistent with the Defendant’s above assertion, as it is difficult to believe B’s testimony on each of the facts certificates and the witness G of the Party.