logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.04.16 2013가단85577
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of investment amount under the court 2005da105223 and 1) The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the payment of investment amount under the court 2005da105223, and this court failed to submit a written response on September 28, 2006, "the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 43 million won and the amount of 5% per annum from July 24, 2006 to September 28, 2006 and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment. The above judgment was finalized on October 31, 2006 (hereinafter "the final judgment of this case") and became final and conclusive on October 2, 2006 (hereinafter "the decision of commencing compulsory auction of this case") and filed an application for the decision of commencing auction of this case with the court 200 Dong-dong and 30% per annum (hereinafter "the decision of commencing compulsory auction of this case").

3) On July 30, 2007, the original defendant paid KRW 20 million to the plaintiff not later than August 1, 2007, and the plaintiff agreed on August 1, 2007 by setting up an application for extension of the date of compulsory auction. According to the above agreement, the defendant paid KRW 20 million to the plaintiff on August 1, 2007. Meanwhile, on March 31, 2008, the plaintiff paid KRW 240,000 to the plaintiff during the above compulsory auction procedure until May 30, 208, and additionally paid KRW 20,000,000 to the defendant, and the defendant additionally paid KRW 20,000,000 to the plaintiff, prepared a promissory notes with the statement that the defendant will pay KRW 20,00,000 to the plaintiff by April 5, 2008, and received each of the above certificates of payment No. 3000,800 for the purpose of establishing the loan in the name of the plaintiff.

Accordingly, the real estate in this case is under the name of the plaintiff, which is the maximum debt amount of 80,000,000.

arrow