beta
Text
1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 189,976,735 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 20, 2017 to the date of full payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants are married couple, and Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s external village, and Defendant C is the Plaintiff’s external mother.
B. Defendant B owned a corporation located in Thailand D (hereinafter “D”), but around June 18, 2009, Defendant B issued and delivered the instant confirmation document (hereinafter “instant confirmation document”) to the Plaintiff.
Defendant B confirms that, at the time of sale of Thailand D, the amount of 30% (at least 200 million won if it is less than 200 million won, at least 300 million won, and at least 300 million won if it is more than 300 million won) shall be paid to the Plaintiff.
C. Meanwhile, from December 26, 2006 to January 30, 2008, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 189,976,735, a sum of the settlement amounts of E and F, Defendant C, credit card holders, from December 26, 2006 to Defendant C’s bank account.
【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was prepared and delivered by Defendant B to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant B agreed to pay at least KRW 200,000,000 to the Plaintiff when the instant confirmation document is sold to the Plaintiff. In fact, Defendant B sold D to G around June 25, 2010, and Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 and delay damages.
B. 1) Determination 1) The fact that the condition has been fulfilled with respect to a legal act subject to a condition precedent is the burden of proof on the part of the Plaintiff seeking to acquire the right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu692, Apr. 12, 1983). 2) Defendant B’s agreement that “at least 200,000,000 won shall be paid to the Plaintiff at the time of D sale” under the instant confirmation is a temporary juristic act subject to a condition precedent under which D would be sold, and the Plaintiff must prove that the said condition has been fulfilled due to the sale of D.
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, defendant B and G around June 25, 2010, "Defendant B".