beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.19 2014가합3095

위약금 및 손해배상

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On June 2, 201, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) purchased the purchase price of KRW 440,000,00 (including the loan obligation of KRW 300,000 (including the loan obligation of KRW 300,000) from the Defendant, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (b) concluded the first sale contract under the condition that the Plaintiff’s representative E (F before the name of the opening) shall preferentially deliver the joint minutes of a resolution to see as the Defendant’s teacher; (c) paid KRW 40,000,000 as down payment to the Defendant on the same day; and (d) around July 25, 2011, the Plaintiff prepared a second sale contract specifying the terms and conditions of delivery of the joint minutes as above joint minutes with the Defendant.

(2) The Defendant sold the instant real estate to G on August 28, 201 and changed the name of the Defendant’s representative around September 23, 2011, while the Plaintiff did not deliver the above joint meeting minutes.

In the meantime, since each of the instant sales contracts was impossible due to the above reasons attributable to the Defendant, the Plaintiff shall cancel each of the instant sales contracts. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,00,000,000, including the total sum of KRW 80,000,000, which is a double the amount of the down payment, and KRW 100,000,000, which is the estimated amount of restitution and the estimated amount of penalty pursuant to Articles 5 and 6 of the said secondary sales contract.

Preliminaryly, even if the sales contract of this case is null and void, the defendant shall pay the above 180,000,000 won and damages for delay which belong to the ordinary damages anticipated to the plaintiff as damages arising from tort by applying mutatis mutandis Article 35(1) of the Civil Act.

2. Judgment 1 on the cause of the claim is the first issue of whether the defendant is a party to each of the instant sales contracts, and whether the party to the contract is the party involved in the contract. The issue of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract is the E, which is the representative of the Plaintiff church and the G, which is the present representative of the Defendant church.