beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,200,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 1, 2015 to May 26, 2017 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 21, 2014, the legal advice agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant legal advice agreement”) was drafted under the name of the Defendant as follows.
Article 1 (Purpose) The defendant (hereinafter referred to as "A") of the advisory contract of this case aims to provide the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "B") with legal counseling services, preparation of legal opinions on legal issues, etc.
Article 4 (Consultation Fee) “A” shall pay “B” 5,000,000 won (VAT degrees) as an advance payment for advisory fees.
The term "A" shall be additionally paid to "B" KRW 7,000,000 (VAT) with advisory fees on August 1, 2014.
(The above amount includes 2,000,000 won for expenses) “A” shall be paid to “B” if taxes under title trust are not added to the Seoul Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B building. 20,000,000 won (VAT).
(Term of Contract) The duration of this contract shall be from the date of this contract to July 31, 2014.
B. On March 10, 2015, the Defendant drafted a written note stating that “I will pay the balance of the advisory fee to the Plaintiff by June 30, 2015,” which read, “I, after the date of the preparation of the instant advisory contract, I have paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff.”
(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant notes”) C.
1) Meanwhile, on June 3, 2013, Korea filed a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against C, D, and E on the ground that “The Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gahap103019 (hereinafter “F”) sold the instant real estate (the instant real estate’s birth) to G (the Defendant’s birth) and did not file a transfer income tax return even after having sold the instant real estate to G (the instant real estate’s birth) and having completed the registration of transfer of ownership, and against which KRW 663,543,280 of the transfer income tax was in arrears, the Plaintiff filed a fraudulent act revocation lawsuit against his children C, wife D, and E. At the time, the Plaintiff and two other parties (the Plaintiff’s agent) act on behalf of C and two parties) in the instant case.