logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.05.27 2019나58414
손해약정금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant agreed to pay 332,460,000 won remaining after deducting down payment of KRW 150,000,00,000, when purchasing from the Plaintiff for KRW 482,460,000 the amount of the contract deposit by the end of February 2018.

(B) The Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 5,00,000 of the unpaid pension to the Plaintiff by March 27, 2018 (hereinafter “instant agreement”) on the ground that the payment date of the remainder was set at “the time of application for approval of the business,” but the date of the remainder payment was re-established and delivered to the Plaintiff on February 27, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 12% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 20, 2018 to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that the agreement of this case is null and void. The defendant asserts that the agreement of this case is an act of management and disposal of collective ownership, but it is null and void because it is not in accordance with the defendant's articles of association or regulations.

However, the management and disposition of collective ownership refers to the act of using or improving the property in collective ownership or the act of disposing of legal or private performance. As such, the act of bearing debts that do not comply with the management and disposition of collective ownership itself cannot be deemed as the act of managing and disposing of the property in collective ownership.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da112299, 112305, Feb. 13, 2014). The Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

The Defendant asserts that the instant agreement is an unfair juristic act or a declaration of intent made by mistake.

arrow