(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합48630

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합48630

약정금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 70,000,000 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 90,000,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from September 7, 2014 to each of them.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 as to the primary claim of the plaintiffs, it is recognized that on April 5, 2014, while the plaintiff and the defendant prepared a divorce, the plaintiff Gap transferred to the defendant 1/2 of the shares owned by the plaintiff A as to the land and the building on the ground of Choyang-si D in Syang-si, and the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff 100 million won to the plaintiff Eul and the defendant 90 million won to the plaintiff B (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"), and the plaintiff Eul received 30 million won from the defendant for the agreement of this case (hereinafter "the agreement of this case").

Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the remaining agreed amount of KRW 70,00,000 (=100,000,000 - 30,000,000), the agreed amount of KRW 90,000,000 for each of them, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from September 7, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is made by mistake of the defendant or by deception of the plaintiff A, and the defendant's argument that the agreement of this case is revoked by the service of a preparatory document as of December 2, 2014, is insufficient to recognize the fact that the agreement of this case was made by mistake of the defendant or deception of the plaintiff A solely with each of the descriptions of lives, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 8-1, No. 8-2, Eul evidence No. 9-1, No. 9-8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit

In addition, the defendant asserts that the amount to be paid to the plaintiff B was changed to KRW 70,000,000, but it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' primary claims are with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017가합522230

-서울북부지방법원 2018.04.18 2017가단109035

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.12 2020가단5216946

-서울남부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018가합104154

-창원지방법원진주지원 2015.07.08 2014가합1884