logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.16 2014나36299
손해배상금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 23, 2008, when the Plaintiff was in office as the managing director of the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the Seo-gu Incheon apartment 102 Dong 4702 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the price of KRW 770,400,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiff obtained a loan from the Nonghyup Bank for the intermediate payment of the instant apartment, and the Defendant agreed to pay interest on the instant apartment at the intervals of paying for the interest on the loan (hereinafter “instant substitute payment agreement”).

C. The Defendant paid interest on the part of the intermediate payment of the instant apartment from June 2013 pursuant to the instant substitute payment agreement, and suspended from around June 2013. The Plaintiff paid the part payment of KRW 14,233,947 in total on seven occasions from July 4, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (1) 2,37,559 in total (4 July 4, 2013) (2) 2,037,528 won (2,037,528 won (3, August 5, 2013) and ④ 1,966,862 won (4, October 4, 2013) and KRW 2,025,750 in total on seven occasions from July 4, 2013 to December 31, 2013 (i.e., the intermediate payment of KRW 130,384,196).

On December 27, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the right to sell the apartment of this case to another person.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Since the plaintiff and the defendant agreed not to institute any lawsuit regarding the sales contract of this case, the lawsuit of this case filed against this agreement is unlawful.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the defendant prepared and executed a letter of undertaking stating that "I will not raise any civil or criminal objection against the sales contract after the submission of the letter of undertaking" (hereinafter referred to as the "certificate of undertaking") to the plaintiff on December 27, 2013, stating that "I will not raise any civil or criminal objection against the sales contract in question."

However, according to the payment agreement of this case, the defendant is subject to the payment agreement.

arrow