손해배상(기)
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “240,000,000 won” of No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “2.4 billion won”; “provisional disposition” of No. 7-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “sale price”; and “provisional disposition” of No. 7-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “sale price”; and the following determination as to the Defendant’s assertion in the court of first instance is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and such determination is cited
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendant asserted 1) 1, on the day of the preparation of the letter of agreement in this case, kept the documents necessary for the cancellation of the execution of the provisional disposition in this case in the office of the certified judicial scrivener, and fulfilled all the obligations under the letter of agreement in this case. 2) Even if not, on September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff et al. agreed with the Defendant on September 30, 2013 that “if co-owners pay KRW 220 million to the Defendant, the Defendant would cancel the execution of the provisional disposition in this case,” thereby waiving or exempting the Defendant from the right to claim damages due to the breach of duty under the letter of agreement in this case against the Defendant.
B. As to the allegation 1, we examine whether the defendant in this case can be deemed to have fulfilled his duty under the agreement of this case. A) according to the statement of No. 6 (storage Certificate), the fact that the defendant kept the documents related to the cancellation of execution of the provisional disposition of this case in the certified judicial scrivener office on the day when the written statement of this case was prepared can be acknowledged.
B. However, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 6, the Defendant’s act of keeping relevant documents in the certified judicial scrivener office as above cannot be deemed to have fulfilled his/her duty under the agreement of this case.
① The Defendant’s provisional disposition of this case to co-owners at the certified judicial scrivener office around that time.