beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나206343

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for infant goods and supplied infant goods to the Defendant.

B. However, on August 9, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the remaining amount of KRW 91,126,397, and the Defendant shall pay KRW 15,000,000 each day from August 18, 2016 to November 18, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 31,126,397 each day from December 18, 2016, and the Defendant shall, if he/she delays the performance, lose the benefit of the time”.

C. However, the Defendant paid only KRW 5,00,000 on August 29, 2016, which was after the first due date, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 86,126,397.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 86,126,397 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 30, 2016 to November 7, 2016, which is the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s invalidity by coercion is that the agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is written by coercion by coercion, such as the Vice-President D, etc. of the C company, the Plaintiff’s actual operator, and thus, is null and void. However, it is insufficient to recognize that each of the descriptions in subparagraphs B through B is written by coercion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant agreement was written by coercion. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant’s invalidity due to the non-performance of the condition is the agreement in which the supply of the goods was originally made on condition, and the said condition was not fulfilled, and thus, the instant agreement.