Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 7, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was living together on September 2, 2014, determined the amount of claims and obligations as KRW 54,880,897, and, on September 7, 2014, drafted a payment undertaking (hereinafter “instant undertaking”) with the Defendant, who was working on a tourist bus from the foregoing B and operated the bus, as follows:
The above defendant promises to pay KRW 54,880,897 to the plaintiff in 2,50,000 on the fifth day of each month until the above amount reaches repayment of KRW 54,880,897 in lieu of the defendant in lieu of the defendant in lieu of the defendant in lieu of the defendant in lieu of the defendant in lieu of the plaintiff in B.
B. From September 7, 2014 to September 11, 2015, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 15,089,800 to the Plaintiff via 15 times pursuant to the instant commitment.
C. However, around October 2015, B consented to the Defendant’s partial payment of income to the Plaintiff under the instant undertaking, and thereafter, the Defendant suspended the subrogation against the Plaintiff pursuant to the said undertaking.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading
2. Determination:
A. As long as the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,500,000 per month revenue distribution according to the above commitment, regardless of whether the agreement under the commitment was lawfully cancelled or not, barring special circumstances, such as the agreement under the commitment was duly cancelled.
B. In full view of the above facts as to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the contents and preparation process of the instant promise, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant based on the said promise was made on the premise of B’s consent in a case where the Defendant had the revenue to be paid to B due to the operation of the land bus by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. As above, B explicitly consented to the Defendant’s continuous performance of subrogation against the Plaintiff.