beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.19 2017가단529416

매매계약금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The following facts are recognized if the facts of recognition are added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2:

A. On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the effect that the Plaintiff shall pay to each Defendant the remainder of KRW 38 million by June 1, 2017, for the purchase of dry field (the purchase of crops i.e., people in a specific dry field 700 square meters in the dry field) in the form of dry field (the form of collective purchase of crops i.e., people in a specific dry field 7,000 square meters) by determining the purchase price as KRW 73 million, which the Defendant cultivated from the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff shall pay each Defendant by the 30th of the same month.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

The Plaintiff deposited KRW 35 million to the Defendant on June 1, 2017 according to the instant contract.

2. Determination:

A. On June 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) examined the Defendant’s dry field that he purchased from the Defendant as dry field sod; and (b) visited the Defendant’s dry field; (c) at the time, the Plaintiff did not have any water supply facilities that supply water to the Defendant against droughts; and (d) accordingly, the Plaintiff resisted the Defendant.

On the next day, the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, but agreed to pay 32 million won, deducting 3 million won out of 35 million won he received, to the Plaintiff as a penalty.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not pay the above money to the plaintiff until now, resulting in the claim of this case.

B. The fact that the instant contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 35 million to the Defendant on June 1, 2017 as the purchase price is recognized, but only the evidence Nos. 2 ( telephone details) and evidence Nos. 4 (mail proving the Plaintiff’s contents that contain the same content as the Plaintiff’s assertion) of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as asserted by the Plaintiff, shall be deemed to have been paid KRW 32 million to the Plaintiff.