약정금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order of payment shall be revoked.
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On August 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 2014, the Korea Venture Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); (b) the business center located in the Namyang-si, the sales of which was conducted by the
While carrying out the sales business by proxy, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a negotiation with the Defendant to enter into the sales contract of 113 and 114 commercial buildings of this case. (2) On August 22, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Korea Venture Industry Co., Ltd. and the Defendant’s spouse, under a special agreement that the sales contract of the number of units other than 114 commercial buildings of this case cannot be carried out as the type of pharmacy business with respect to the number of units other than 113 and 114 commercial buildings of this case (hereinafter “instant contract”).
3) The Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as fees at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant did not dispute with the Plaintiff, each of the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including serial numbers), and the fact inquiry results with respect to the Hansung Venture Industry Co., Ltd., Ltd., by the court of the first instance, and the purport of
B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed fee of KRW 20 million and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from October 30, 2014 to February 3, 2016, which is the date following the day on which a copy of the complaint of this case is served, to the day on which the Defendant becomes liable for the performance of the obligation and the scope of the obligation, barring any special circumstances.
The Plaintiff claimed for late payment from the day after the date of entering into the instant contract, but the Defendant agreed to pay immediately the fee on the date of entering into the instant contract.
It is against the fact that a separate due date has been set with respect to payment of fees.