약정금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The allegations by the parties and the grounds for this part of this Court are as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of "the oral agreement is null and void, since the defendant's statement was made in the course of explaining investment prospects, even if it appears that there was an agreement with the President," the defendant's statement was not a true intention, and the plaintiff with investment experience several times of time, having known or could have known that it was not a true intention." Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as stated in Paragraph 2 of the same Article.
3. Determination
A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (3 4-15). Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
B. Comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, it is reasonable to view that the defendant made an oral agreement to return the above amount of KRW 200 million to the plaintiff, and part of the result of the defendant's personal examination that seems contrary thereto is not trustable, and each statement in the evidence Nos. 2-5 does not interfere with the recognition of the above facts.
However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the period during which 200 million won was to be returned was set on November 30, 2017, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Defendant agreed to the period during which 200 million won was to be returned.
In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the above oral agreement is null and void as a declaration of intention, not a true intention, but there is no evidence to support it (it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff knew or could have known the fact that the Defendant’s oral agreement was a declaration of intention, not a true intention, even if there were several investment experiences in the Plaintiff).