beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the plaintiff’s assertion in the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion in the trial room
A. The part on the 3 to 5th of the judgment of the court of first instance on the instant penalty agreement (hereinafter “instant penalty”), namely, the part on the 7th of the instant agreement, which stated “where the Defendant violated the instant agreement, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the full amount received from the Plaintiff according to the instant agreement and the interest calculated by the ratio of 8% per annum from April 1, 2009 to 8% per annum.”
1) The plaintiff's assertion on partial invalidation of the contract of penalty of this case 1) argues that even if the nature of the contract of this case is deemed to be a penalty for breach of contract, only the part of the contract of this case concerning the payment of child support for C equivalent to the excessive amount, and the remaining part of the penalty is still valid. 2) In light of the above-mentioned facts and the whole purport of pleading, the following circumstances are acknowledged as follows: (i) although the obligation to be borne by the defendant under the agreement of this case is different from that of the defendant, although the contents and nature of the contract of this case are different, the contract of penalty of this case did not separately specify the penalty for breach of duty of the defendant; (ii) the defendant is obliged to return the entire amount received by the plaintiff under the agreement of this case uniformly regardless of the content and degree of the violation; and (iii) the agreement of penalty of this case is de facto exempted from the obligation of the plaintiff to pay child support for the plaintiff; and (iii) prohibits the exercise of recognition claim by