매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The facts following the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including each number in case of additional number) and the whole purport of the pleadings.
On April 30, 2013, the Future Savings Bank (hereinafter referred to as the "Bankruptcy Bank") was declared bankrupt on April 30, 2013 by the Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap54, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the bankruptcy trustee.
B. On October 12, 2006, 5.8 billion won was determined at 10% per annum and due date on January 12, 2007 (the extension of due date to July 12, 2007) to operate a new business of constructing a main complex building in Daegu-gu AO (hereinafter “instant business”). On October 12, 2006, 5.8 billion won was extended by the bankrupt bank in order to prepare the purchase price for the instant project site from the bankrupt bank.
However, the USPP has not fully repaid the principal of the loan until the date of the closure of the pleadings in this case.
C. On June 26, 2006, the USP entered into a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant with respect to the purchase price of KRW 600,000,000,000 for Daegu-gu AR (hereinafter “instant real estate”) for the purpose of securing the instant site for the instant business (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).
Article 3 of the instant sales contract provides that “The purchase price, method of payment, and effect of an agreement” shall be set at the time when 90% of the purchase contract for a project site is completed, intermediate payment, and remainder shall be within 20 days after authorization is granted (Provided, That within 180 days).
On July 3, 2006, 12 million won was paid to the Defendant in accordance with the instant sales contract, and as part of the part of the intermediate payment.
E. Even until December 1, 2016, the date of closing argument in the party trial, the USPP did not file an application for authorization or permission to implement the project of the instant case with the competent authority, and the remainder of the payment and payment to the Defendant.