공탁금출급청구권확인의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Co., Ltd.
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the defendant as stated below to the argument emphasized by the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of
2. In addition, the Defendant alleged that A disposed of the claim for the return of down payment and intermediate payment following the cancellation of the instant apartment sales contract to the Defendant and the first instance trial co-Defendant Korea Credit Union. However, Article 3(5) of the instant conciliation clause provides that, by paying the money listed in paragraph (3) to the financial institutions providing intermediate payment loans to A, the return of down payment and intermediate payment following the cancellation of the sales contract specified in paragraph (1) of the instant conciliation clause may be substituted by the return of the intermediate payment and intermediate payment, and that A agrees without any objection. In principle, Article 3(3) of the instant conciliation clause provides that, in light of the text of the instant conciliation clause, the pro rata real estate trust return the down payment and intermediate payment to A pursuant to paragraph (3) of the instant conciliation clause, but it is interpreted that “A does not object even if the pro rata real estate trust pays it to the Defendant and the first instance trial co-Defendant Credit Union,” and it cannot be interpreted that “A disposes of down payment and intermediate payment claims to the Defendant and the first instance trial co-Defendant Credit Union.”
The defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.
The Defendant agreed to grant the Defendant a direct claim based on Article 7(1) of the Convention on the part payments and loan service that the Defendant entered into with respect to the apartment complex of this case, and further, Article 7(5) of the Coordination Clause has the nature of a contract for a third party, and the Defendant alleged that he expressed his intent to make a profit in the trust of real estate. However, anywhere the Coordination Clause of this case does not include Article 7(1) of the Agreement on the part payments and loan service.