beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.04.05 2017가단7741

분양대금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff agreed that the company which has executed the reconstruction project of the apartment complex of Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and eight parcels of D apartment complex, and that the construction cost of the above construction would be paid from the E reconstruction association, the executor, as the sale price of the commercial building in the above complex. -

On May 2, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract and sales agency contract with ELLS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ELLS”) and ELLS to purchase commercial buildings at a pre-determined trading price as soon as possible for registration.

On June 30, 2006, LELS continued to sell the above commercial buildings, and entered into a contract with F and F, the Defendant’s spouse, to sell the above commercial building for KRW 300 million (hereinafter “instant commercial building”). -

However, the Plaintiff rescinded the contract as the Plaintiff failed to pay the sales price and the intermediate payment as stipulated in the above sales and sales agency contract.

On the other hand, on August 19, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell the instant commercial building in KRW 229,621,240, and recognized that the Defendant’s spouse paid KRW 80 million out of the sales price that the Defendant’s spouse paid to ELS as the sales price. -

However, on October 15, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon delay in paying the above parcelling-out price, entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant to pay 38,192,690 won in total (hereinafter “instant parcelling-out price”) by April 30, 2010 and to pay the late payment charge calculated at the rate of 17% per annum at the time of delinquency (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] A. 1 (a contract for sale in lots, and there is no dispute over the entire document's authenticity, A. 2), A. 3, and the money loan agreement for consumption in lots, and the seal. Therefore, the authenticity of the entire document is established, since there is no dispute over the whole document's authenticity.