logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.07.01 2015가단50238
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 22,00,000 and KRW 2,00,000 each month from July 20, 2016 to November 20, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are married couple who completed the marriage report on January 5, 1987.

B. From October 15, 2013 to January 15, 2014, the Defendant was indicted on four occasions with another female (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Dadan2149), and a divorce lawsuit was also instituted (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Dadan8533), and on November 21, 2014, the Defendant, among which the trial was in progress, prepared a “written confirmation and a letter of confirmation” (hereinafter referred to as “written confirmation”) to withdraw a complaint and a divorce lawsuit on the condition that the Plaintiff does not have a female again between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

Each letter includes the statement that "I will pay A (Plaintiff) for five years each month from December 20, 2014, and will pay 40% of retirement allowances and pension at the time of retirement."

C. After receiving a written complaint from the Defendant, the Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint and divorce lawsuit against the Defendant. The Defendant, according to the content of the written complaint, paid to the Plaintiff KRW 2 million each month until July 2015, and did not pay it from August 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 22 million,00,000,000 according to the respective written agreement from August 2015 to June 2016, which is close to the date of the instant declaration that became due, and the next payment date from July 20, 2016 to November 20, 2019, which is the next payment date.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff filed a divorce suit against the defendant again on September 14, 2015, the obligation of each letter cannot be fulfilled because the conditions of each letter are not observed.

Then, after the preparation of a letter, a divorce lawsuit (the document specified in the note) in which the plaintiff was pending is pending at the time.

arrow