beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and above.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff is the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) and D’s children, and the Defendant is D’s South-North Korea. As the deceased died on May 25, 1980 due to a vessel accident at the Incheon Coastal Sea, D’s wife and the deceased’s heir, including the Plaintiff, (hereinafter “the deceased et al.”) received KRW 5,00,000 as compensation.
On November 25, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the following agreements (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreements”) were made.
Contents of agreement and amount: The amount calculated by converting the current value of the death benefit (30 million won) to the value on May 1982, 1982, (the defendant) shall be paid to Chokn (the plaintiff) within the following month (the December).
(b) 2-300 million won from the total amount shall be paid up to the following day, and the balance shall be paid in installments within one year for 100 million won.
b. [Ground for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s argument as to the entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the entire pleadings does not pay KRW 5,00,000 of the compensation received by the inheritor, including the Plaintiff, upon the death of the deceased (hereinafter “the above compensation for death”), and the Plaintiff did not pay the compensation, even though the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 300,000 by December 31, 2015 (the above KRW 100,000,000,000) as the repayment of the instant loan through the instant agreement. Thus, the Plaintiff should pay the agreed amount of KRW 30,00 and delay damages.
The Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not borrow the instant loan from the heir, such as the Plaintiff, etc., and even if the Defendant borrowed the instant loan, even if it had already been repaid prior to the formation of the instant agreement, it had prepared the instant agreement with the firstman on April 2016, while the Defendant had been continuously forced from November 2015 to April 2016.