약정금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 40 million with respect to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 31, 2017 to August 30, 2018, and the following.
1. On May 18, 2017, the Defendant: (a) paid to the Plaintiff KRW 60 million in return for the withdrawal of a complaint against a fraudulent case by Daegu District Court Decision 2016Kadan3619; (b) the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 20 million on the same day to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (c) the fact that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is either a dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by the statement in the evidence No. A. 2.
According to the above facts, according to the agreement of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won with compensation for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in 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 from December 31, 2017, which is the day after the date of payment agreed with the plaintiff, to December 27, 2018, which was served on the defendant as requested by the plaintiff.
(A) The Plaintiff’s claim on May 19, 2017, and December 30, 2017, for the delayed payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum for the period from May 19, 2017 to December 30, 2017. However, there is no proof of any assertion by the Plaintiff as to whether the obligation to pay to the above Defendant was delayed before December 30, 2017, the agreed payment date. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim on the Defendant’s claim on December 2, 2017. The instant agreement paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant upon the Plaintiff’s decision to purchase the Defendant’s land and building, Daegu-gu, Seoul-gu, which is the Defendant’s wife, to purchase the Defendant’s land and building, but upon the Plaintiff’s request from the creditor E, it was concluded by claiming the return of the above KRW 60 million for compulsory auction. In view of the circumstances leading up to the Plaintiff’s application for compulsory auction.