약정금 등
1. The Defendant’s KRW 470,871,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 22, 2014 to August 22, 2018.
According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of claim Gap, the defendant, on November 21, 2012, prepared a claim certificate stating that "the defendant will be liable for the outstanding amount of KRW 620,871,000 for a two-year period (hereinafter "the claim certificate of this case") to the plaintiff on November 21, 2012, and thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff 620,871,000 won agreed in the claim certificate of this case and delay damages therefor, barring any special circumstances.
The defendant asserts that there was no supply of fishery products from the plaintiff as to the defendant's argument, that the business partner who supplied fishery products is D, operated by the defendant's wife, and that E has taken office from August 201 to August 201 as the representative director of D, so the plaintiff did not supply the fishery products to the defendant, and that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the price for supplying fishery products to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed a claim for the agreed amount based on the bond certificate of this case. Thus, regardless of whether or not the plaintiff supplied fishery products to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the money set forth in the bond certificate of this case to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
The Defendant asserts as to the process of preparing the bond certificate of this case, that the E, who had been in the business custody of D’s funds, used the above funds at will, and that the Defendant only prepared the bond certificate of this case to recover the embezzled money, and that the Plaintiff did not intend to pay the money stated in the bond certificate of this case.
The evidence presented by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the certificate of credit in this case was prepared by the defendant's declaration of intention not to be the defendant's truth, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
The defendant's assertion of partial repayment due to auction shall provide a certificate of claim of this case.