logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.06.29 2016가합22893
소유권말소등기
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 280,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 29, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 110 million to the Defendant, who is a child, respectively, KRW 200 million on February 10, 2014, and KRW 310 million on February 10, 2014.

B. In filing the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on June 27, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “the above KRW 310 million was donated to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant support the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife C, and that the Defendant violated the above condition, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to cancel the donation contract, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 310 million to the Plaintiff.”

C. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant pending the instant lawsuit. On November 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) paid KRW 280 million to the Plaintiff by November 30, 2016. When the Defendant delays all or part of the obligation to pay the said amount, damages for delay shall be paid at a rate of 15% per annum from the date of delay to the date of full payment. After the Plaintiff received the entire amount from the Defendant, the Plaintiff drafted an agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 280 million under the instant agreement and the agreed damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from December 1, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date.

3. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserts that "the agreement of this case was prepared by his/her own coercion, so it is revoked."

However, only the recording record (No. 11) submitted by the Defendant was prepared by the Defendant’s coercion.

or the Plaintiff knew or could have known the aforementioned circumstances.

(Article 110(2) of the Civil Act).

arrow