약정금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion sought to donate the instant shares to the Plaintiff, but if the Plaintiff donated the instant shares to the Plaintiff, it would be likely that the Plaintiff would be subject to provisional seizure from the creditors, and the Defendant donated the instant shares to the Defendant on December 7, 1998 and completed the registration of ownership transfer. At the time, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the instant shares if sold.
In addition, around August 2012, the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to the instant share if the instant real estate is sold to the Plaintiff in the place where the original Defendant couple, H couple, I, and J are gathered.
Therefore, pursuant to the above agreement dated December 7, 1998 or agreement around August 2012, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 130 million, which is the selling price of the instant share.
B. The evidence consistent with the plaintiff's above assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul witness witness of the court of first instance and the court of first instance, although the evidence Nos. 5, 6, 8, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments, are as follows: ① at the time when the registration of transfer of shares in the name of the defendant was completed, it is not deemed that the deceased E has any special circumstance to give the plaintiff the shares in this case (the network E was the mother of the defendant at the time) and ② if the deceased E intended to give the plaintiff the shares in this case, it is difficult to easily understand that the plaintiff's wife or the plaintiff could not receive the shares in this case under its name even if they were unable to receive the transfer of the shares in this case.