beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 41,727,380 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from October 1, 2015 to December 9, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Facts of recognition 1) On February 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C concluded a partnership agreement with each of 1/3 shares in the new construction and sale of multi-household housing on the Osan City Land. 2) The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C concluded a partnership agreement with the Plaintiff to withdraw from the partnership agreement on August 18, 2015, and the Defendant acquired the Plaintiff’s 1/3 shares, and the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of 41,727,380 won, which was 8,272,620 won deducted for the purchase of truck acquired under the name of the Plaintiff from the 50,000,000 won invested by the Plaintiff, after receiving all documents related to the construction work, and, if the loan is delayed, by September 30, 2015.
3) The Plaintiff issued various documents related to construction works to the Defendant, and notified the Defendant of the contact number, amount, etc. for each company. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap Nos. 1 through 6 and 9, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]
B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 41,727,380, which was promised to the Plaintiff on August 18, 2015, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act from October 1, 2015 to December 9, 2016, which is the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from October 1, 2015, and from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The substantial party to the instant partnership agreement is Plaintiff’s father E, and the Plaintiff’s claim is merely a nominal lender. The Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff is unable to settle the accounts because it did not return counter-documents related to construction works.
B. As to the assertion that the plaintiff is not a party to the partnership agreement, the plaintiff generally constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract.
The interpretation of an expression of intent shall be made by the parties concerned.