beta
Cases
2015dan38627 Agreements
Plaintiff
A
Defendant
B
Conclusion of Pleadings
November 1, 2016
Imposition of Judgment
November 29, 2016
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 45 million won with 5% interest per annum from October 1, 2015 to the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. On May 16, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred all the lease rights, goodwill, and facilities of the instant commercial building between the Defendant and the Plaintiff; (b) paid KRW 70 million in total to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million in lease deposit and premium for the instant commercial building; (c) paid KRW 10 million in the lease deposit for KRW 30 million in a contract; and (d) paid KRW 20 million in the remainder on June 12, 2015; and (e) paid KRW 40 million in the lease deposit for KRW 30 million in a contract; and (e) paid KRW 10 million in the amount of KRW 20 million in the lease deposit for KRW 30 million in a contract; and (e) paid KRW 40 million in the premium for the instant commercial building by dividing the amount of KRW 40 million on July 20, 2015, August 20, 2015; and (e) agreed to pay the instant contract to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2015.
B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 25 million on May 16, 2015 and KRW 15 million on June 12, 2015, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 45 million. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant contract on September 30, 2015.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion
Since the Defendant paid only KRW 25 million after the instant contract and did not pay the remainder of KRW 45 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 45 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. Determination
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant contract on September 30, 2015. As such, the Plaintiff cannot demand the Defendant to pay the remainder of the transfer price of KRW 45 million under the instant contract on the premise that the validity of the instant contract is maintained.
The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.
3. Conclusion
The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.
Judges
Judges, members of the Supreme Court