(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2014.09.17 2013가단15145

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2014.09.17 2013가단15145

약정금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and annual interest thereon from December 31, 2006 to September 17, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s agreement between the Plaintiff on June 7, 2006 and the Plaintiff on December 30, 2006 to pay KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff by December 30, 2006 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) is either in dispute or in accordance with the purport of entry of evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the contract of this case was conditional upon the plaintiff's living together with the defendant, and the plaintiff did not comply with the contract of this case, and therefore there is no obligation to pay the above money. However, there is no evidence to prove that the agreement of this case was added to the same condition, and the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that he paid KRW 30 million to the plaintiff.

In light of the above, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract at the Defendant’s recommendation and paid a lease deposit to a lessor, but failed to receive a refund of the lease deposit as the object of the lease was sold by auction, the Defendant entered into the instant agreement as the compensation claim, and thereafter, received KRW 20 million from the Defendant as the compensation claim for the lease deposit. Therefore, it is reasonable to view the above KRW 20 million as the payment under the instant agreement.

Furthermore, the defendant's assertion that the repayment amount exceeds KRW 20 million and reaches KRW 30 million is rejected as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

As to this, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 70 million from the Defendant as the compensation amount of the above lease deposit, the Plaintiff asserts that the above amount of KRW 20 million should be paid even if the Plaintiff deducteds the amount of KRW 50 million. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is recognized as having agreed to receive KRW 70 million.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.02.12 2014나33073

-대구지방법원 2014.05.22 2012가합11659

-서울남부지방법원 2016.07.05 2016가단1155

-청주지방법원 2020.06.11 2019나11204

-전주지방법원 2016.09.23 2016나1017