beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts and the reasons why the court's assertion by the parties are stated in this part are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or dismissal of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
According to the text of the judgment of the first instance, the term “as of February 23, 2016” is added to “as of February 3, 2016” following the third sentence. According to the text of the judgment of the first instance, the term “F, etc.” is as follows: (a) the term “Plaintiff” is deemed as “F and F and F I”; and (b) the term “Plaintiff” is deemed as “D.” The term “as of September 13, 2017,” the term “as of September 4, 2017,” the text of the judgment of the first instance is added to “as of September 13, 2017.”
In the fourth sentence of the first instance judgment, “H” is added to “27,00,000 won deposited by I, a third-party debtor, a corporation.”
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the claim for the agreed amount based on the instant agreement, Article 137 of the Civil Act of the interpretation of the instant agreement becomes null and void, the entire part of the juristic act shall be null and void.
However, if it is recognized that a juristic act has been conducted even though there is no nullity, the remaining part shall not be null and void. This means that even if a part of a juristic act is null and void, if the juristic act is separated or part of the object can be specified, if the party's assumptive intent to maintain it is recognized even in the remaining part, it may be null and void and maintain the remaining part as valid.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da207538 Decided December 10, 2015). As to the instant case, the first sentence of paragraph (4) of the instant agreement states to the effect that “A confirms that a claim D had against the Plaintiff was taken over by the Defendant, and confirm that a claim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not remain any obligation relating to the above assignee’s claim.”