beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2013가합70731

매매대금

Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 147,249,129 and KRW 23,985,00 among them, from July 26, 2008, KRW 25,492,50.

Reasons

On August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff agreed on August 16, 2007 to sell to B the right of lease of the first floor store of the D Commercial Building D Co., Ltd. (including value-added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply) 169,950,000 won (including value-added tax) that will be newly constructed on the land of Jung-gu Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant lease contract”). According to the instant lease contract, KRW 33,90,00 for down payment 33,90,000 on July 25, 2007, and KRW 25,492,50 for the first intermediate payment 25,492,50 on September 25, 2007, and KRW 25,492,50 for the second intermediate payment 25,492,50 on February 25, 2008, and KRW 25,492,50 for the third intermediate payment 25,492,50 on July 25, 2008, and KRW 25,492,50 for the fourth intermediate payment 25,492,50 on December 25, 2008, respectively, shall be paid at the rate of delay and shall be paid at the rate of 19% per annum.

On November 7, 2007, the Plaintiff, B, and the Defendant agreed to accept the status of the parties to the instant lease agreement.

B or the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,507,50 out of the total amount of the first part, the second part, and the third part.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute or the plaintiff is the plaintiff, and according to the above fact of recognition as Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining sale price of 83,467,500 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

In full view of the purport of the argument in each statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the judgment as to the claim for the additional sale price, the sale price of the lease contract of this case is divided into KRW 38,500,000, excluding the rental deposit and the rental deposit, and the sale price of this case is agreed to pay the additional sale price in proportion thereto if the exclusive area of the store increases after the drawing of the store. On February 24, 2010, the defendant won 165 on the first floor and the exclusive area of this case is from May 9, 2010.