beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The defendant shall share 1/3 of the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 10 million to the Defendant as of September 30, 2013 by the due date. In the event that the Defendant fails to pay the said money by the due date, the Plaintiff agreed to transfer the ownership of 1/3 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Plaintiff, instead of paying the principal and interest (hereinafter “instant payment agreement”).
B. The Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant in accordance with the above agreement.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was unable to repay the principal and interest within the due date stipulated in the instant accord and satisfaction agreement, and sought against the Defendant the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate based on the instant accord and satisfaction agreement, and seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the ownership transfer agreement as the preliminary claim.
B. According to the above facts, on July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant promised to transfer the ownership of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff in lieu of the repayment in a case where the Defendant did not repay the principal and interest obligation of the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff on July 24, 2013. The market price of the instant real estate at the time of the promise to return the substitute was calculated only by the officially announced land price, and the fact that the market price of the instant real estate at the time of the promise to return the substitute is equal to KRW 37,90,000,000, is significant in this court. As such, the instant accord and satisfaction agreement is null and void as a promise to make a payment in substitutes in violation of Articles 607 and 608 of the Civil Act,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da51220, Feb. 9, 199). Thus, this case’s accord and satisfaction agreement regarding the instant real estate.