매매대금
1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 74,988,141 and its KRW 69,507,641 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 74,98,141 on August 1, 2015.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell to the Defendant all rights related to a limited partnership company C (hereinafter “instant corporation”) at KRW 185 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The payment of the price was paid in installments by 20% at the time of the contract, 30% at the end of January 2015, 40% at the end of April 2015, and 10% at the end of July 2015.
B. Accordingly, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 12.5 million on January 24, 2015, KRW 37 million, KRW 5.5 million on January 31, 2015, and KRW 12.5 million on July 23, 2015.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that the claims and obligations arising before the above sales contract revert to the Plaintiff. On November 18, 2015, the Defendant refunded KRW 5,480,50 of the value-added tax for the second term of the instant corporation in 2014, and paid KRW 12,992,359 as the provisional payment interest for the Plaintiff in December 9, 2015.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (Partial number omitted; hereinafter the same shall apply)
(2) Each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, and 7, the fact-finding results of this court's fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings)
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the principal claim, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid purchase price of KRW 82.5 million (i.e., KRW 185 million - KRW 12.5 million), the Defendant’s adjusted interest paid by the Defendant in KRW 5,480,50, which was paid by the Defendant, 74,988,141, which was deducted by KRW 12,92,359, and delay damages therefrom.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion and the cause of counterclaim
A. In the instant sales contract for the Defendant’s assertion, the agreement was concluded to invalidate a contract where the license for the land lease and the extraction business of the aggregate extraction place (D and 20 parcels in the East Sea) was not extended in 2015 to 2016. On May 2015, the instant sales contract was concluded final and conclusive, and the Plaintiff was the Defendant.