2016dan22381 Agreements

1. A;

2.B

3.C

4.D

E

December 20, 2017

February 21, 2018

1. The defendant shall pay to the Selection F 7,381,216 won, to the plaintiff (Appointed Party), 11,937,263 won, to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) B, 7,381,216 won, to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) B, 7,418,485 won, to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) C, 11,705,117 won, and 7,418,485 won, to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) D, 7,342,525 won, Ha to the Selection, 8,608,093 won, and 15% interest per annum from January 17, 2017 to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiffs") entered into each partnership joining contract between the KNN Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee") and L, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency") which is the agency company (hereinafter referred to as the "Agency") that carries out the construction project of multi-family housing at the Jung-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, and paid 238,384,800 won in total as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

B. After all, the Plaintiffs, promotion committee and agent agreed to terminate all of the instant subscription agreements on November 3, 2016, and agreed to return down payment KRW 238,384,800 by November 8, 201.

C. Accordingly, on November 28, 2016, the Plaintiffs: (a) were refunded the amount equivalent to 50% of the above down payment; (b) but (c) were not paid the remainder down payment, and (d) concluded an agreement with the Defendant on November 28, 2016 that the Defendant would return all the remainder down payment on behalf of the Promotion Committee and the agent, etc. (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

D. At the time of the instant agreement, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant returned all the remainder down payment to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant may receive the original copy of the membership agreement from the promotion committee, the agent, etc., and the Plaintiffs agreed to agree on this (Article 3 of the instant agreement).

E. The Defendant paid only KRW 50 million, which is part of the down payment to be paid to the Plaintiffs according to the instant agreement, 119,192,400, and accordingly, the balance of the contract amount which each Plaintiffs did not receive up to now is as follows.

(2) The amount of the plaintiffs (won) shall be 17,381, 216C11, 705, 117A1, 937, 263D7, 418, 485B7, 381, 216H7, 342, 525G7, 418, 485I8, 608, 605 aggregate (won) 69,192,400

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, entry of evidence No. 1-2, and evidence No. 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts of recognition, barring special circumstances, the defendant's agreement of this case to the plaintiffs.

Accordingly, 69,192,400 won in total (=19,192,400 won—50 million won) and damages for delay are liable to pay the remainder down payment to be refunded.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Selection F KRW 7,381,216, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 11,937,263, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party B) KRW 7,418,485, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 11,705, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 11,705, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 11,117, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) KRW 7,418,485, the amount of KRW 7,342,525, the amount of KRW 8,608,093, each of which is the following day on which the duplicate of the instant complaint was served to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at a rate of 15% per annum from January 17, 2017 to the date of full payment.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

1) Defenses of simultaneous performance

The defendant asserts that the obligation to deliver the original copy of the membership contract and the obligation to pay the remainder of the contract deposit by the defendant is also a simultaneous performance relationship, because the defendant received the original copy of the membership contract and subsequently received it to transfer it to others.

However, in full view of the purport of evidence No. 1-1 of this case, it can be confirmed the fact that the defendant and the defendant specified the obligation to return the down payment as the obligation to perform in advance by stipulating that the original copy of the membership contract can be received only after the defendant and the defendant fulfilled all the obligation to return the remaining down payment to the plaintiffs (Articles 2 and 3 of the agreement of this case). Thus, the above simultaneous performance defense of the defendant is without merit.

(ii) Uneasy defenses

Even if the defendant fully pays the remainder of the down payment, he shall operate the promotion committee and the agency business.

Since it is not clear whether or not the plaintiffs have made it difficult for them to deliver the original copy of the membership agreement to the defendant, they claim that they may refuse to fulfill their obligation to return the down payment pursuant to Article 536(2) of the Civil Code.

However, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiffs after returning the remainder down payment to the Plaintiffs is merely a matter of consent to the Defendant’s receipt of the original copy of the membership agreement (Article 3 of the instant agreement). Therefore, it is difficult to reverse the grounds for the Plaintiffs’ consent, which is the obligation of the Plaintiffs, itself, is difficult.

Even if the defendant's domestic defense was decided to the effect that it is difficult to issue the original copy of the membership agreement, in light of the statement of the evidence No. 1 submitted by the defendant to the effect that it is possible to issue the original copy of the membership agreement by the cooperation of the plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's uneasiness defense.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified, and all of them are accepted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Tae-tae

A person shall be appointed.