beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.
Therefore, this court's reasoning is as follows, except for the case where the plaintiff filed an incidental appeal at the court of the first instance and the court affirmed the judgment of the court of the first instance as to the claim that the plaintiff seeks an incidental appeal, and thus, this court's reasoning is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The 3rd side of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 2 to 12.
On April 29, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 20,000,000, out of the remainder of KRW 170,000,000 under the above transfer contract, within two years from the month when the Defendant received the case cost from the “D church”, in 1,00,000 each month.
According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 7, 8, 11, and 12 and the whole pleadings, the Defendant may recognize the fact that the Defendant received the case cost from the “D church” from August 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 within two years each month from August 2017.
As to this, the defendant, at the case cost, received KRW 2.5 million per month from "D church" and KRW 3,80,000 per month as activity expenses, and if he received KRW 2.8 million per month, he would pay KRW 1,00 million per month to the plaintiff for KRW 2.8 million per month. Since there is no normal receipt of KRW 2.8 million per month, he did not have a duty to pay KRW 20,000 per month. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant agreed to pay KRW 2.8 million to the plaintiff on condition that the plaintiff and the defendant receive KRW 2.8 million per month. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.
Therefore, the defendant from August 2017 to November 2018, 2018, before the plaintiff changed the purport of the incidental appeal.