beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Plaintiff’s failure equivalent to the following amount ordered shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s judgment on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional parts, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
C is supplied with alcoholic beverages equivalent to KRW 108,471,800 from the Plaintiff, and the remaining 6,310,800 from the payment is paid in part.
C repaid 14,00,000 won out of 29,000,000 won of the Plaintiff’s loan.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, C violated each of the support agreements with the Plaintiff on July 7, 2016, and thus, it appears that pure penalty is the amount equivalent to the loan.
(2) The defendant is obligated to pay as penalty for breach of contract. The defendant is a joint and several surety of C, and is obligated to pay penalty of 44,00,000 won and damages for delay as claimed by the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's signature of each supporting agreement and each supporting letter is forged, and the seal letter is alleged to have been stolen. However, according to the result of the written appraisal by the appraiser H conducted by this court, the defendant's signature in each document can be recognized as the defendant's writing, and contrary to this, the testimony by the witness C of the first instance court and the result of appraisal by the appraiser I of the first instance court is not trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3) Next, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the agreement on each of the assistance agreements and the agreement on penalty for a letter of assistance agreed to unfairly excessive penalty compared to the subsidy and thus, is null and void or forced to be contrary to social norms, and that the agreement is null and void or forced to be revoked. However, the mere fact that the Defendant asserts that the agreement is insufficient to recognize it as an act contrary to social norms or by coercion, and there is no other evidence. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit. However, the agreement on penalty for each of the assistance agreements is in accordance with Article 39