beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff’s grounds for appeal are added as stated in the following (2). Thus, this is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. On December 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant a claim for KRW 300 million of the agreed amount based on the letter of payment dated January 12, 2006, "(the Defendant) with the payment of the above amount as KRW 300 million and approximately KRW 4 billion from the property to be paid by the Defendant (the Plaintiff’s payment shall be deemed to be a distribution amount to all the students, and the seal on this letter of payment shall be deemed to be the payment). Accordingly, the Defendant’s payment agreement based on the above letter of payment was based on the condition that the Defendant would have divorced by agreement and the Defendant, but it did not have any subsequent divorce, and thus, the said agreement shall not be effective as non-performance of the terms.
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 and the defendant are married couple on February 20, 1976, and the Suwon District Court on January 12, 2006.