약정금
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Defendants, based on the facts, own each 1/2 shares of D forest land 154m2, E field 1941m2, F road 1438m2, G field 986m2, H forest land 1457m2, respectively (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).
I is the father of the defendants.
[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) around October 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with I as follows with respect to each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant agreement”); (b) the Defendants were in the position of an agent delegated comprehensively by the Defendants; or (c) the Defendants ratified I’s unauthorized Representation by remitting the agreed money to the Plaintiff; (d) the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement.
① Subject to the cancellation of the right to collateral security established on each of the instant lands, the Defendants shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 275 million totaling KRW 270 million and interest KRW 5 million.
② The method of payment of the amount is as follows: (a) if the Defendants first pay KRW 100 million and interest KRW 5 million, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant right to collateral; and (b) if a financial institution loans each of the instant lands as collateral, the amount is immediately paid KRW 100 million, and the remainder KRW 70 million shall be paid within three months.
(3) In order to secure the payment of KRW 70 million, a financial institution shall establish and implement a new collateral security higher than that of a financial institution with respect to the land in this case.
B. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the assertion of representation is insufficient to recognize that Eul concluded the instant agreement on behalf of the defendants on behalf of the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, even if based on the above evidence, the parties that concluded the instant agreement with the plaintiff can only recognize the fact that the plaintiff was I.
Therefore, the argument that I signed the instant agreement on behalf of the Defendants is without merit.
(c).