beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a mutual agreement with the following content (hereinafter “instant mutual agreement”) on March 29, 2009 does not conflict between the parties.
(1) The commencement date of the guidance agreement on March 29, 2009 is March 29, 2009, and the completion date is February 29, 2011.
② The Defendant, the owner of a household, shall be paid a total of KRW 340,00,00 to the Plaintiff as the cause of the household, and KRW 50,000,000 on April 29, 2009, KRW 50,000 on May 29, 2009, KRW 40,000 on September 7, 2009, KRW 50,000 on September 29, 200, KRW 50,000 on November 29, 200, KRW 50,000 on May 15, 2010, and KRW 16,000 on June 16, 2010, respectively.
Provided, That when the defendant pays the above amounts to the plaintiff, the food expenses equivalent to 1/100 shall be deducted.
③ During the duration of the instant fraternity, the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant KRW 2,650,00 per month the deposit amount of KRW 2,650,00, the deposit amount of KRW 2,635,00, the deposit amount of KRW 7,560,00, the deposit amount of KRW 2,50,000, the deposit amount of KRW 9,250,000, the deposit amount of KRW 15,250,00, and KRW 4,410,000, the deposit amount of KRW 16, respectively.
Provided, That in the month in which B receives each of the above accounts from the Plaintiff, the obligation to pay the accounts of the relevant sequence shall be exempted.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant did not pay KRW 100,877,000 out of the total amount of KRW 35,657,00 out of the total amount of KRW 2,75,00, KRW 7,50,000 out of the total amount of KRW 7,000, and KRW 33,015,00 out of the total amount of KRW 16, and KRW 100,87,000 out of the total amount of KRW 16, and claimed against the Defendant for the payment of the said amount and damages for delay.
In light of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement No. 2 of the evidence No. 2 of this case, D in the appellate court of a lawsuit (U.S. District Court Decision 2012Gahap2566, Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na17508, Supreme Court Decision 2013Da94862) where the defendant sought payment of the deposit money that the plaintiff had not paid against the plaintiff, his husband and joint guarantor, and the defendant filed for payment of D from the defendant, 57,513.