약정금 등
1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 1, 2014 to January 6, 2015.
1. According to the evidence No. 4 (Written Confirmation) as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, on May 26, 2014, entered into an agreement to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff in cash on or before the last day of June 2014, and to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million for the mental and material distressed by the Plaintiff at the last day of November 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
Meanwhile, on June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff voluntarily recognized the fact that he/she received KRW 20 million from the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant ought to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 60 million (=the agreed amount of KRW 80 million - the repayment amount of KRW 20 million) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 1, 2014 to January 6, 2015, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The gist of the defendant's defense was that the defendant applied for provisional seizure on the site of the Dta canal wells, which was a preparation for sale, and posted a fla card in front of the sales office, after newly building on the land of the Dta canal wells, Nam-gu, Seoul and two parcels.
Although the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay money to the Plaintiff at all, the Plaintiff’s foregoing act is likely to cause trouble in the construction permission and sales of other canalies, and without any choice, entered into the instant agreement with the Plaintiff. In light of the content, the Defendant would pay KRW 30 million or more of the money actually paid by the Plaintiff.
As can be seen, the agreement of this case constitutes a juristic act in which fairness has been significantly lost due to the defendant's poverty, and is null and void, so there is no reason to respond to the plaintiff's request
B. The entry of the evidence No. 1, which seems consistent with the defendant's defense, by E, as the defendant's children, has a de facto interest with the defendant.