beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 12, 2006, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant, as the cause of the claim, made a written statement of payment as follows to the plaintiff, who is the husband, and therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 300 million won to the plaintiff, unless there is any special circumstance.
On December 10, 2006, the payment date of KRW 300,000,00,000 shall be paid from the property about KRW 4,00,000,000 in payment, and (30,000,000,000 shall be deemed to be a distribution to all the parties and affixed a seal on this
2. Defenses;
A. The defendant asserted that the payment agreement of KRW 300 million under the above payment memorandum was limited to the condition that the plaintiff would divorce by agreement, but the subsequent agreement did not have been divorced by agreement, and thus, the non-performance of the condition is not effective.
B. In a case where a couple, who has not yet been divorced, agrees on the division of property on the premise of the agreement to divorce by agreement, barring any special circumstance, a conditional declaration of intention shall be made on the condition that the divorce by agreement between the parties would take place, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the agreement shall take effect only in a case where a divorce by agreement has been reached after the agreement between the parties, and where a marital relationship remains without divorce by agreement, or where a judicial divorce (including a divorce by compromise or mediation) has been reached by a divorce claim filed by one of the parties, the agreement shall not take effect due to the non-performance of conditions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da14061, Aug. 19, 2003).
In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 8, the plaintiff is the married couple on February 20, 1976, and the defendant was confirmed as the intention of divorce on January 12, 2006, but did not file a report of divorce within the time limit, and thereafter the plaintiff was against the defendant.