The client, as defendant, purchased land from the plaintiff and completed ownership transfer registration after agreeing to pay all debts secured on the land, including attachments and mortgages. When the client failed to fulfill that repayment promise, the land was eventually sold through compulsory auction and the plaintiff lost ownership. The plaintiff then alleged that the client had prepared a written undertaking promising to compensate for the damage caused by non-performance and to pay KRW 300 million, and filed a lawsuit seeking that contractual amount.
Taelim??s defense team focused on whether the alleged KRW 300 million payment agreement had been legally established at all. Relying on the basic principle of civil litigation that the party making an allegation bears the burden of proof, the defense emphasized that the plaintiff had to clearly prove the existence of the alleged KRW 300 million agreement. Taelim argued that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish any of the essential facts: the land sale contract, the debt repayment agreement, and most importantly, the damages agreement to pay KRW 300 million.
Even if some facts concerning the land sale were recognized, Taelim argued that the plaintiff??s claim had to be dismissed because the core legal fact?the existence of the KRW 300 million payment agreement?had not been proven. The court accepted Taelim??s arguments in full and ruled entirely in favor of the client. The court held that the plaintiff??s evidence was insufficient to recognize the alleged sale, debt repayment, or KRW 300 million damages agreement, and dismissed the claim.
This case clearly shows the importance of the burden-of-proof principle in civil litigation. Even if damage occurred due to non-performance and the plaintiff alleged that an undertaking existed, a large monetary claim can be dismissed when the plaintiff fails to prove the legal formation and effect of the agreement. Taelim successfully defended the client by attacking the evidentiary insufficiency at the core of the complex contractual relationship.
** If you are facing a situation similar to the above case, please feel free to contact Law Firm Taelim at any time.
咨询热线 
