beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단541291

부당이득반환 청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant: KRW 30,000,000 on September 11, 2018 to Plaintiff B; and

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2018, the Plaintiff A, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, confirmed the Gangnam-gu Seoul apartment E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant, which had been making a physical sale through a real estate intermediary, on July 23, 2018. In order to purchase the instant apartment, the real estate intermediary recommended that even if part of the purchase price is required to be immediately transferred to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff B, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, transferred KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the same day.

B. However, on July 25, 2018, Plaintiff A requested a real estate broker to return the above KRW 30 million to the real estate broker with the intent to not purchase the apartment of this case. Ultimately, the conclusion of the apartment sales contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant was nonexistent.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In order to establish a judgment contract on the cause of a claim, the agreement between the parties is required to be reached, and such agreement is not required with respect to all matters which form the content of the contract in question, but there is a specific agreement between the parties or at least a specific standard and method with respect to the essential matters or important matters, and in case where the parties fail to reach an agreement on matters on which the agreement should be reached, it is reasonable to deem that the contract has not been concluded, barring any special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da51650, Mar. 23, 2001). The following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire facts and arguments, namely, ① there is no direct exchange of intent to trade between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and there was only delivery of the subject matter of trade and the purchase price of rent through a real estate intermediary, and later.