beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.09.09 2020가단6590

각서금

Text

The defendant shall pay 169,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 18, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 30, 2010, the Plaintiff sold to D, who was the Defendant’s Republic of Korea.

E. F Land was sold at KRW 451,250,00 (the contract amounting to KRW 406,250,000,000,000,000 on the date of concluding the contract) but did not receive KRW 175,00,000 from D until the date of remainder payment (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On November 15, 2016, the Defendant: (a) himself/herself; (b) the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 5 million out of the unpaid purchase price of KRW 175,000,000, up to November 15, 2016; and (c) the remainder KRW 170,000,000 from February 2, 2017 to the end of each month; and (d) the Defendant prepared a letter to the effect that the payment would lose the benefit of time if the payment is delayed at least twice (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 169,000,000, excluding the amount of KRW 6 million paid to the plaintiff out of the agreed amount pursuant to the letter of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to reduce the agreed amount of KRW 175,000,000 as KRW 100,000 per month and to repay the agreed amount of KRW 500,000 per month. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact of the agreement as alleged by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 169,00,000 won with 12% interest per annum from May 18, 2020 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.