Jeju Attorney | Recovering Hundreds of Millions of Won Through a Lawsuit Against a Corporation

The Jeju attorney's client went to A Co., Ltd., a company primarily engaged in construction, to commission the construction of a new building, and there an executive asked whether the client could lend approximately 800 million won.

The executive's request was as follows: he needed money for a new business, and if the client lent him one of the client's buildings, he would sell that building to raise 800 million won and repay the 800 million won in cash within one year.

Judging that there would be nothing to lose as long as a written undertaking was prepared, the client handed over one of the buildings and prepared a sales (presale) contract.

In addition, the client and A Co., Ltd. recorded the following special agreement in the sales contract.

A Co., Ltd. did not repay the money by the repayment date. It also extended the repayment deadline several times and told the client that it would pay additional interest.

However, it still did not repay the money thereafter, and in breach of its promise to give the client the rights to A Co., Ltd.'s building, it even sold the building to another person.

As a result, the following written undertaking was finally prepared between A Co., Ltd. and the client.

Even after ㅁㅁ ㅁㅁ, ㅇㅇㅇㅇ, A Co., Ltd. did not pay the amount due to the client, so the client came to the Jeju attorney in order to file a lawsuit.

Company A asserts that it had repaid the entire loan claim before preparing the letter of undertaking to the Jeju attorney's client.

Company A claimed that it had fully repaid the loan claim owed to the Jeju attorney's client;

the terms of the contract and other matters were set out in the above letter of undertaking, and where the parties draw up the contents of a contract as a dispositive document, they finalize and record the rights and obligations of the parties existing as of the time of drafting.

Accordingly, Company A agreed in the letter of undertaking to pay the client 800 million won.

In addition, it extended the repayment deadline several times and also set the increased amount as the borrowed amount.

However, in that process, Company A took no account whatsoever of the repayment it is now asserting.

For that reason, the assertion that Company A repaid the loan does not make sense as a matter of common sense.

Because the client of the Jeju attorney received no repayment of the loan at all under the above terms, Company A is to pay not only the loan of 800 million won but also delay damages calculated at an annual rate of 20% from the day following the repayment due date of OOOO, MM DD, until the date of full repayment.