beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million with the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 8, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant's name, which is recognized as the defendant's written statement by the result of appraiser D's written appraisal, is presumed to be the authenticity of the whole document), Gap evidence No. 2, and the whole arguments and arguments as to the cause of the claim, the defendant prepared a written statement of payment to the plaintiff on January 29, 2007 that "if the defendant is to receive money after the conclusion of a real estate related lawsuit, etc. with E, he/she will immediately pay 120 million won to the plaintiff." After the conclusion of a lawsuit related to real estate with E, the defendant can be acknowledged that he/she received dividends of KRW 78,74,672 in a compulsory auction procedure for a detached house located in the F in Thai City of Taecheon-si around 2013.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 120 million as well as damages for delay as stated in the above statement of payment.
The defendant's assertion argues that although there was no entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 (Incompetence) and Gap's evidence Nos. 4-1, 2 (Incompetence), the plaintiff's name was forged.
According to the results of the written appraisal by appraiser D, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted, since the penology of the defendant's name stated in Gap evidence 1 (Incompetence) and Gap evidence 4-1, 2 (Incompetence) corresponds to the defendant's ordinary penology (the defendant's receipt, written application for change of service place, and written application for postal bags prepared and submitted to the court).
In addition, the defendant was settled because the plaintiff's claim was derived from monetary transactions between the spouse.
Although it is alleged that the above claim was exempted from the obligation with respect to KRW 10 million out of the total amount of the claim, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, in the evidence No. 1, the above claim is the case of applying for provisional seizure against immovables 2007Kahap8 between the defendant and E, and the case of applying for suspension of compulsory execution between the defendant and E.