약정금
1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 40,000,000.
2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
3.Paragraph 1.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to divorce on April 30, 2018, but the Defendant sold the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and agreed to pay 40 million won as consolation money to the Plaintiff when the remainder is deposited (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
B. The Defendant did not sell the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination of the parties' arguments
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay consolation money of KRW 40,000,00 in accordance with the agreement of this case.
The defendant asserts that the above obligation to pay consolation money is conditional or indefinite, since the above obligation to sell the real estate of this case and pay the balance at the time of receipt of the balance, and as long as the above real estate was not sold, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim because the condition is not fulfilled or the deadline is not arrived
B. (1) Determination shall be based on a reasonable condition in cases where it is deemed that, in the case of a juristic act to which an additional officer of the relevant legal doctrine attached, if the facts indicated in the additional officer do not occur, the obligation should not be performed. If it is reasonable to deem that the performance of the obligation should not be performed even when the facts indicated have occurred, as well as when the facts indicated have not occurred, it shall be deemed that the existence of
(2) In the event that the performance period of an obligation is not only when the fact occurred, but also when the fact becomes impossible, it is reasonable to view that the performance period of an obligation has come due even when the fact does not occur within a reasonable period.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da41766 Decided March 29, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2001Da41766 Decided May 14, 2009