합의금
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. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant shall jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff KRW 1,50,000,000 as damages for damages from November 1, 2013 to June 2015, respectively, and KRW 30,980,000 (= KRW 1,500,000 x 20980,000 x 20980,000) on July 6, 2015, on a one-time basis, the Defendant shall be jointly and severally and severally paid the Plaintiff KRW 8,970,00 from May 31, 2014 to April 2014. However, even though the Defendant agreed that the payment shall lose the benefit of the due date if the payment is delayed, it shall be deemed that the payment was suspended after the lapse of the due date. < Amended by Act No. 11883, May 31, 2014>
Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the Plaintiff the agreed interest rate of 22,010,000 won in total (=30,980,000 won - 8,970,000 won) and the agreed interest rate of 20% per annum from June 1, 2014 to the date of full payment, following the day of loss of the benefit of time.
(Plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of damages for delay from May 1, 2014, but as seen earlier, the Defendant lost the benefit of May 31, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay exceeding the above recognition scope is without merit).
The defendant's defense, etc. is proved to have paid 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff in addition to KRW 8,970,000, which the defendant recognized earlier, and therefore, according to the evidence No. 3-2 of the evidence No. 3-2, it is recognized that the defendant remitted 5,00,000 won to the plaintiff's account on November 26, 2013 (hereinafter "the payment of this case").
As to this, the plaintiff re-claimed that the repayment amount of this case was appropriated for a separate liability for damages, not for the obligation of the contract amount of this case, according to the contents of No. 4-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.