약정금
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 43,200,000 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 28,800,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from January 1, 2014 to each of the said money.
1. Now you have agreed to pay the above amount set forth in 72,000,000, not later than December 31, 2013, as a real estate investment transaction relationship, in the note of payment for recognition.
Provided, That the part which is extended to the extent of one month due to the circumstances of the F president, who is the original contractor, shall be handled by January 31, 2014, in consideration of the circumstances.
on October 19, 2013 G (Signature) G (Signature) in Chungcheongnam-Nam-nam, Chungcheongnam-gun (Signature)
A. On October 19, 2013, the Defendant drafted a letter of payment (Evidence A 1; hereinafter “instant letter of payment”) with the following content to D type E.
B. D died on May 13, 2015.
Plaintiff
A is the wife of D, the plaintiff B as the children of D, and D's inheritors.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 4 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff A 43,200,000 won (=72,00,000 won x 3/5) x the plaintiff B 28,800,000 won (=72,00,000 won x 3/5) x 3/5) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from January 1, 2014 to September 12, 2016, which is apparent from the date following the due date to be served as a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.
3. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant's obligation to pay money based on the letter of rejection of the payment in this case should be divided into the defendant and F.
In light of all the circumstances, such as the language and text, preparation, etc. of the instant payment note, which is acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 72 million to D jointly and severally with F, a seller of the right to purchase housing sites, and there is no ground to limit the Defendant’s obligation based on the instant payment note to KRW 36 million.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion.