beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Northern District Court against the Defendant and C seeking the payment of the goods price (8,086,142 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 24% per annum from August 7, 2003 to the date of full payment).
(Seoul Northern District Court 2007 Ghana42915, hereinafter referred to as the "Prior Trial"). (b)
In the preceding case, on January 30, 2007, the defendant and C jointly and severally paid 8,086,142 won to the plaintiff and 24% interest per annum from August 7, 2003 to the date of full payment. The defendant filed a written objection against the above decision with the Seoul Northern District Court.
Accordingly, among the preceding cases, the part between the plaintiff and C was final and conclusive by the decision in lieu of the above conciliation.
C. On the date of the conciliation on March 21, 2007 of the preceding case, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a conciliation agreement between the Plaintiff and C that “the Defendant shall jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff KRW 8,000,000 to April 4, 2007, and if the said money is not paid by the payment date, the amount of the remainder unpaid plus the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from April 5, 2007 to the date of full payment.”
The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,00,000,000 on November 4, 2008, and KRW 1,000,000 on October 10 of the same month.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff received KRW 3,00,00,000 from the Defendant based on the decision in lieu of the conciliation of the preceding case. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder amount of KRW 5,086,142, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from August 7, 2003 to the date of full payment. 2) The Defendant’s husband D’s assertion that the Defendant’s husband paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant.