beta
Text
1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 28 million, as well as 5% per annum from March 18, 2015 to January 15, 2016, and from the next day.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 28, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) as a broker of a licensed real estate agent, purchased the lease deposit amount of KRW 280,000,000,000 from the Defendant; and (b) KRW 28,000,000 from March 3, 2015 to March 23, 2015; (c) the lease deposit amount of KRW 28,000,000 from the contract deposit to the contract deposit (in fact, deposit of KRW 2,00,000 on January 26, 2015; and (d) the remainder amount of KRW 252,00,000,000 from March 3, 2015; and (e) the lease period was determined and leased from March 3, 2015 to March 2, 2017.
(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.
According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 100 million out of the remainder amount of KRW 252 million to the new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) from the new bank (hereinafter “new bank”) at the time of the preparation of the said special agreement, as stated in the following: “The lessor is obligated to cancel the remainder at the time of the remainder of the loan; and the lessor agrees to the repayment of the remainder at the time of the lease agreement; and thus, the lessor agreed to pay KRW 100 million out of the remainder amount of KRW 252 million from the new bank (hereinafter
C. On February 9, 2015, the Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's Registry of port of registry, which was received on February 9, 2015, and the claim amounting to KRW 193,50,000 due to the provisional attachment decision (No. 2015 business group3063) by the Seoul Family Court on February 6, 2015, and the provisional attachment decision on the instant apartment was completed under the name of D, the Defendant's wife.
(hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). D.
(1) On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff was notified of the fact that the instant provisional seizure was made through the above licensed real estate agent, and asked the new bank about whether it is possible to grant a security loan on a deposit basis. The new bank responded to the impossibility of a security loan on a deposit basis unless the instant provisional seizure is cancelled.
(2) When notifying the Defendant of the above fact, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to cancel the provisional attachment of this case until March 2, 2015, which is the day before the payment date of the balance, but eventually, this did not change.