logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.08 2015나62844
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the plaintiff added a judgment on the argument at the trial in paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) provides that the Defendant shall pressure the Plaintiff to implement the instant installment repayment agreement and impose a penalty if he/she has violated the agreement, which imposes a sanction on the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of installment repayment shall be repaid in full without considering specific circumstances, such as the difference of the amount of debt repaid by the Plaintiff, the remaining amount of repayment or the frequency of repayment, etc. If the amount of installment repayment is not paid for three months or longer. Therefore, the part exceeding the scope of the entire amount or considerable amount is null and void against public order and good morals.

(2) The Plaintiff paid up to 80% of the predetermined amount to be repaid in installments, and applied for a compulsory auction on real estate owned by the Plaintiff without guiding or explaining how the Defendant would recover the benefit due to the loss of the Plaintiff even though the Defendant had established a firm intent to repay the remaining amount of debt, the Defendant’s exercise of rights is against the principle of trust and good faith.

B. (1) Determination of the penalty for breach of contract is based on the agreement on the penalty for breach of contract to ensure the performance of one of the obligations. The loss clause of this case does not cause any additional liability for nonperformance in the event of a certain cause, such as the failure of the Plaintiff to pay the installment amount for three months or longer, but does not lead to the Plaintiff’s claim for the benefit of repayment of the installment pursuant to the agreement on the repayment of the installment, and it does not require the Plaintiff to pay the debt amount finalized by the judgment of this case.

arrow