약정금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 through 12 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) as to the cause of the claim, the defendants sent a mobile phone message to the effect that the plaintiff cannot yield 20 million won or less to the plaintiff, and that on August 26, 2016, the defendant C sent the message to the plaintiff on August 17, 2016, to the effect that the defendant C sent the message to the effect that the plaintiff would not yield 20 million won or less to the plaintiff, and that on August 26, 2016, the defendant C sent the message to the plaintiff on August 17, 2016, and that on August 26, 2016, the defendant C sent the message to the plaintiff, and that on August 26, 2016, the defendant C sent the message to the plaintiff on May 16, 2016.
In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned facts and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants agreed to jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million to the firstman of September 26, 2016, as damages for water leakage accidents, to the Plaintiff on August 26, 2016. ② The Defendants paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2016, and agreed to pay the remainder KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff until January 2017.
A. Examining the message between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, on September 21, 2016, on the premise that Defendant B paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on September 21, 2016, there is a dialogue as to the time of payment on the premise that the Plaintiff additionally pays KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff.