beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument as to the ground for claim No. 1’s statement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred KRW 5,000,000,00 for business rights and facilities, etc. in the studs of “D” in the Siljin-si, operated by the Plaintiff on May 20, 2005, and KRW 30,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 25,000,000,000 for the contract amount to be paid as of July 20, 205, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 25,00,000 under the above contract.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's defense as to the waiver is proved that the plaintiff renounced the above remaining claim around October 2005.
The waiver of a claim or exemption of a debt is not necessarily required by the express declaration of intent, but by the interpretation of a certain act or declaration of intent of a creditor, it is necessary to recognize the waiver of a claim. However, for such recognition, it is necessary to determine whether to apply it by strict interpretation of an act or declaration of intent of a creditor in accordance with the contents of the pertinent legal relationship.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da94509 Decided June 13, 2013). In light of the following, witness E testified to the effect that “E, F, and Plaintiff et al. will not receive any more money,” and witness E testified to the effect that “E, F, and Plaintiff et al. will not receive any more money. The Defendant returned to the Plaintiff.” Meanwhile, witness F testified to the effect that “I would like to give up the Plaintiff any claim, but I would think that I would have given up the claim, and I would like to give up the claim, and I would like to give up to the Defendant.” (See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da94509 Decided June 13, 2013). In this case, the witness E’s testimony alone does not mean that the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff.”