기타(금전)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this case, except for the following parts, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Under the fourth attached Table of the first instance judgment, the "for the entire argument" among the "founded grounds for recognition" shall be deemed to be the "the purport of the entire argument".
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The instant partnership agreement was terminated with the preparation of the instant performance agreement on the Plaintiff’s assertion.
Since the agreed amount of KRW 120 million stipulated in the execution agreement of this case is an obligation with no fixed deadline, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 120 million and the delay damages.
B. Determination 1) On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted the instant implementation agreement in order to resolve the dispute regarding the instant trade agreement. Of the amount invested by the Plaintiff under paragraph (2), the said agreement entered that the Plaintiff waives its rights as a partner on the condition that the amount invested (120,000,000 won = contract deposit, intermediate payment, construction permit fee) excluding taxes, etc. is refunded. Paragraph (1) and paragraphs (4) and (6) of the instant implementation agreement stipulate that the Defendant shall assume all responsibility for the intermediate payment and the payment of remainder of the land before the instant subdivision on the premise that the instant agreement is settled, and the Plaintiff’s sales contract cooperation and the establishment of a collateral security (as seen earlier), however, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire arguments to each of the aforementioned evidence, the said recognition agreement was immediately terminated by the preparation of the instant implementation agreement.
It is insufficient to recognize that the agreed amount of KRW 120 million prescribed in the instant implementation agreement is a debt with no fixed term, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
① Paragraph (2) of the instant implementation agreement is only 120 million out of the investment funds of the Plaintiff.