beta
Text
1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall be the Seoul Special Metropolitan City as to the number of digging machines listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around January 2015, the Defendant received a loan from a lending company as collateral and lent the same construction machinery lessor to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff agreed to borrow a loan of KRW 27,000,000 from the Defendant to repay KRW 1,100,000 per month as the principal and interest of the loan.
(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)
However, the Plaintiff failed to pay the amount after the repayment of KRW 5,500,000 in five times. On March 16, 2017, the Plaintiff drafted a transfer contract under the following contents (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”).
On March 16, 2017, the date of sale and purchase 29,216,784 won and the remainder 29,216,784 won and the total amount of the remainder 29,216,784 won, E transferee B (Defendant)
C. On April 3, 2017, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant transfer of ownership”) by receipt C on April 3, 2017 of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office’s Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-6 and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The substance of the cause of the claim in this case’s payment agreement is that the Plaintiff transferred ownership to the Defendant, and the Defendant renounced the Plaintiff’s remainder of the loan to the Plaintiff, while making an agreement on the payment of KRW 29,216,784 to the Capital Capital Business on the part of the Plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with the Defendant to believe that the Defendant would have paid all of the remaining amount of KRW 29,216,784 to the Capital Capital Business. In fact, the Defendant did not perform its obligation to pay the remainder.
Accordingly, on September 14, 2017, the Plaintiff rescinded an accord and satisfaction agreement on the ground of the foregoing nonperformance of obligation, and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.