beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나65336

청구이의

Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment as set forth in paragraph (2) as to the part concerning which the plaintiff raised an appeal and raised an additional claim in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The content of the agreement on debt settlement in this case cannot be seen as the content of the agreement on debt settlement, since the content of the agreement on debt settlement, which was prepared at the time of the agreement on debt settlement of the Plaintiff’s additional assertion, is merely an example printed in the same text, and thus, the compulsory execution of this case under the premise that the remaining debt remains as it is due to the violation of the agreement on debt settlement of this case should be dismissed.

B. In light of the above facts, if the purport of the entire argument is added to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, the above commitment is merely an example, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff applied for debt adjustment on the ground that it is difficult for the financial institution, which is the obligee, to repay the entire amount of the obligation because there is no property owned by the public account (including legal bonds, real estate, automobiles, etc.) as of the present public account; and (b) it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff, the obligor, did not know at all when the property owned by the public account was discovered; and (c) it cannot be deemed that the above commitment is merely an example, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.