beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 137,50,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from May 17, 2019 to October 15, 2019, and the following.
Reasons
1. The following facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence of 1 to 7, Eul evidence of 1 to 3, and the purport of all pleadings.
A. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) subcontracted the installation of a window, glass, and door door (hereinafter “instant construction”) to KRW 137,50,000 for construction cost (excluding value-added tax) among the new construction works of a multi-household building D (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) executed the construction cost (the owner and the prime contractor are the Defendant).
B. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, C, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the instant construction cost of KRW 137,500,000 to the Plaintiff, but the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the instant construction cost of KRW 137,50,000 to the E (the building F of the instant building was changed to March 8, 2016).
(hereinafter “instant direct payment agreement”) C.
The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work on March 2016.
With respect to the title G and F of the instant building, the registration of ownership preservation in the Defendant’s name was completed on May 24, 2016, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 14, 2016 under the name of H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) (hereinafter “H”).
E. On December 21, 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendant continued the instant lawsuit, as indicated in the instant direct payment agreement, concluded to add the building G to the object of a substitute reimbursement as stipulated in the instant direct payment agreement, and converted into an agreement with the Defendant that “the Plaintiff would receive reimbursement from the Defendant in lieu of the building G and F” (hereinafter “instant substitute payment agreement”).
2. At the time of the conclusion of the instant accord and satisfaction agreement, the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s claim for ownership transfer registration against H regarding the instant building G and H was provisionally seized. The instant accord and satisfaction agreement was legitimate on the ground of the Defendant’s deception regarding the said provisional attachment.