본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2020.02.20 2019가단5426

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29,741,109 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from July 27, 2011 to the day of complete payment.


1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2010, the Plaintiff operated D SPacacacacacaca in Busan Metropolitan City C (hereinafter “instant CPacacacacacacacacac

B. On January 19, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a business transfer agreement with the Defendant with respect to the instant scamba, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant scamba to the Defendant.

C. On February 23, 2010, the Defendant agreed to pay (1) KRW 43 million to the Plaintiff up to May 17, 2010, and (2) where premium 43 million is not paid by May 17, 2010, the Defendant paid damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum to the Plaintiff.

In order to secure the above premium payment obligation, the Defendant created a right to collateral security on the first floor F of the building E of the Masan-si, Changwon-do, Changwon-do (hereinafter “instant secured real estate”).

E. Since then, the Changwon District Court G in relation to the instant secured real estate, the auction of real estate was conducted, and the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 13,258,891 in the said auction case on July 26, 2011.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 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 the remainder of KRW 29,741,109 (=43,00,000 - 13,258,891) out of the premium agreed upon to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from July 27, 2011 to the date of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is merely that the Defendant lent the name upon the Defendant’s request of Ma, and the Plaintiff fabricated the record of sales in order to sell the instant scambling, and did not have any actual sales differently from the expectation.

In addition, the plaintiff considered the agreement to adjust H and the purchase price.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.

B. The judgment of the Defendant lent the name to H, and the Plaintiff’s sales record.