beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.10 2017가단108234

매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a person entitled to purchase a daily life countermeasure site in the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seoul Songpa-gu Urban Development Project as a person to be supplied with a daily life countermeasure site.

B. On June 1, 2011, the Defendant decided to sell the right to sell the daily life countermeasures site to be received in the future (hereinafter “the right to sell the instant land”). On or around June 1, 201, the Defendant issued a sales contract, receipt, performance memorandum, loan certificate, etc. (hereinafter “the transfer document of this case”) with the seller’s seal affixed on the seller’s column, and received the payment from D.

C. D re-transfer the instant water ownership to Nonparty E, and E re-transfer it to the Plaintiff.

On June 10, 2011, the Plaintiff received the original copy of the transfer document of this case from E as the buyer.

E sold the right to sell this case to Nonparty F and issued a certificate of transfer of right under the name of the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1 to 6, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s purchase of the instant purchase right to the Plaintiff, despite having sold the instant purchase right to the Plaintiff, the Defendant sold the instant purchase right twice to Nonparty F and provided the Plaintiff with all necessary documents to change the purchaser.

As a result, the Plaintiff was unable to acquire the sales right of this case, the Plaintiff cancelled the sales contract of this case on the grounds of impossibility of performance, and sought restitution of the purchase price to the Defendant.

See The defendant only entered into a sales contract with the plaintiff or F, and there is no fact that the sales contract was entered into with the plaintiff or F.

Furthermore, the certificate of transfer of rights issued to F does not correspond to the Defendant, but is not a document necessary for the transfer of ownership, and thus, the obligation under the sales contract asserted by the Plaintiff.