약정금
1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 100,000,000 won and the period from December 31, 2010 to September 17, 2019.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff paid 50,000,000 won to the account designated by the defendant Eul, although he was promised on September 28, 2009 that the construction work of the apartment building that is scheduled to be newly built in the Gyeonggi-do City F and G district will be ordered to be designated as the person eligible for priority selection of the brin restaurant by the above company, and paid 50,000,000 won to the above company. However, the above company did not accept it, and did not let the plaintiff operate the brin restaurant. ② The defendants paid 100,000 won as compensation to the plaintiff by September 28, 2010. However, the defendants failed to comply with this agreement, and the defendant B again made up for his signature and seal on September 31, 2010.
Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million agreed upon in accordance with the instant performance memorandum and the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the date following the date of the repayment of the contract to the date of the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of the full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.
2. As the above defendant's assertion against the defendant C is only a guarantor of the contract deposit claim asserted against the defendant B, the defendant B, the principal debtor, pursuant to special laws for the protection of the guarantor, did not give any notice to himself/herself as the guarantor, who did not perform the obligation for not less than three months. The rejection of the performance of this case does not have an agreement on the guarantee period, and the validity period is only three years, which is already more.