logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2016.06.01 2015나2220
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The relevant part of the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance of basic facts shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary cause of claim: Around September 4, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold the instant land in KRW 3,150,000 on the side of the Gangwon University, and distribute the proceeds from the sale to KRW 1,575,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the Defendant’s interest and interest on the loan to the Defendant (the amount reduced to KRW 200,000,000,000,000 (= KRW 1,575,000,000 - KRW 1.49,000,000,000). The Defendant made an agreement with the Plaintiff to take over the ownership of the instant land in the name of the Plaintiff and to treat all the loans to the Defendant E (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Then, on the grounds of the Defendant’s financial situation, the Plaintiff and the Defendant made an amendment to the instant agreement on September 22, 2009 and immediately paid KRW 300 million, but paid KRW 700 million within one year. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 95,00,000 after deducting KRW 5 million, out of the agreed amount, and delay damages.

B. Preliminary cause of claim: The designation of the school site for the instant land was cancelled due to the management of affairs or the efforts or provision of labor by the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment, and the value has increased accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff a half of the profit therefrom.

3. Determination

A. As to whether there was the agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged in the plaintiff, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness G and H in light of the relationship between the plaintiff and the witness, etc., and it is insufficient to recognize that there was the agreement of this case merely by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and 10 through 12.

arrow