beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가합51863

기타(금전)

Text

1. As to KRW 50 million and KRW 200 million among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall start on October 23, 2015, and as to KRW 300 million, on October 23, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 778 square meters out of the share of 3,298 square meters and KRW 2,049 square meters in E-owned forest (hereinafter “E forest”) among the share of 3,298 square meters in Kimhae-si, Kim Jong-si (hereinafter “C forest”) owned by the Defendant, and KRW 1,726,200,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) paid 200 million won out of the down payment KRW 500 million on the date of entering into the contract; (b) paid the remaining KRW 300 million on December 10, 2015; and (c) simultaneously implement the payment of the remainder KRW 1.22 million and the registration of transfer of ownership; (b) according to the sales contract written after an industrial complex planned in C forest and E forest is approved; and (c) agreed to set up a collateral security at the expense of the Defendant as to C forest in order to secure the obligation to return the down payment upon

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 20 million on October 22, 2015, and KRW 300 million on March 2, 2016, and paid the down payment KRW 500 million. D.

On March 17, 2016, the Kim Sea Mayor approved and publicly announced a plan to create a F General Industrial Complex at the Institute of Forest and E Forest.

E. At the time of filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant did not set up a right to collateral security regarding C forest land.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number), Eul's 16, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion argues that since the contract of this case was cancelled by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case for the following reasons, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment amount to the plaintiff as restitution.

① The Defendant, despite the Plaintiff’s repeated demand for performance, did not set up a right to collateral security in C forest and field, thereby resulting in delay of performance, and created a right to collateral security with regard to C forest and field.