손해배상금
The part against the plaintiff falling under the amount ordered to be paid under the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell at KRW 120,000,000 of the land owned by the Plaintiff for KRW 883 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and entered into the following special agreements with the Defendant:
1. The seller deducts KRW 120,000,000 from the purchase price among the loans 198,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant loans”) that the seller received as security of the instant land, and takes over KRW 78,00,000 to the buyer, and the buyer is liable for interest and various taxes from the date of the occurrence of the loan.
3. The interest of a bank shall be deducted in six months, and the amount remaining at the time of transfer registration of ownership within six months shall revert to the seller;
4. The buyer shall complete the registration of ownership transfer of the sold real estate and succeed to all of the bank loans within six months from the date of the balance payment; and
5. The seller shall grant a final registration of ownership transfer to a person designated by C when transferring the sale real estate as a buyer and a third party.
B. On September 14, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 128,00,000 from E Union on September 14, 2012, and deducted KRW 128,000,000, and remitted KRW 70,000 to the Defendant on September 19, 201.
C. However, the Defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land within the time limit set in the instant sales contract, and did not succeed to the instant loan obligations.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5, Eul evidence 6-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. Although the Defendant’s final and conclusive parties asserted that the purchaser of the instant sales contract was F and that himself was not the purchaser, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize the above assertion, and rather, based on the aforementioned evidence.