beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 70,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 31, 2014 to April 6, 2015.
Reasons
1. According to the reasoning of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff is the president of the "D Hospital" located in Jinju-si, the defendant is the president of the "F Hospital" located in the Dong-gu in Busan-gu, and G is working for the head of the "D Hospital" in the "D Hospital" from April 2008 to October 30, 2014.
At present, the term “F Hospital” has served as the head of a division in the F Hospital, and on October 31, 2014, the Defendant may recognize the fact that on December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70 million out of the loan debt of KRW 180,000,000 to G by December 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
According to the above facts, according to the agreement of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 70 million won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from December 31, 2014 to April 6, 2015, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.
2. The defendant's arguments regarding the defendant's assertion are as follows.
In other words, the agreement of this case is based on the declaration of intention or mistake by duress, and thus the agreement of this case was cancelled by the delivery of a duplicate of the written reply of this case. Thus, the agreement of this case lost its validity.
Even if not, the instant agreement is a condition precedented on the premise that the Plaintiff’s prompt disposal of G and the Plaintiff’s payment of unpaid benefits to G at the time of “D Hospital” work would normally be made until November 5, 2014, and that the said condition was not fulfilled, the agreement was not effective unless the said condition was fulfilled.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the agreement of this case is valid is without merit.
I seem to be consistent or consistent with the above argument of the defendant.