매매대금
1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 24, 2006 to January 21, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
1. The facts of recognition: (a) on December 20, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on December 20, 2005, under which the Plaintiff would sell 19.075 percent (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of Gyeonggi-gun B 10,39 square meters of forest land (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in KRW 100 million; (b) agreed to be paid on June 23, 2006 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (c) on December 30, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate on December 29, 2005 with respect to the Defendant on December 12, 2006, ③ the Defendant did not enter the Plaintiff’s payment note that KRW 100 million of the instant real estate sales price will be paid by June 23, 2006 (hereinafter “instant payment note”), or the purport of the entire pleadings as to each of the parties concerned, as a whole.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 100 million of the instant real estate purchase price and its delay damages in accordance with the instant sales contract and the instant payment note.
B. On June 2004, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate amounting to KRW 50 million, and that the Defendant again purchased the instant real estate amounting to KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on the premise of the development of the instant real estate, and that the instant real estate price should be calculated again as KRW 50 million, which was the initial purchase price of the Plaintiff, on the ground that no smooth development was made on the instant real estate.
However, in light of the fact that the instant sales contract and the instant letter of rejection of the instant payment made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the instant real estate sales price should be re-calculated solely on the sole basis of the Defendant’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to support this.
The defendant's above assertion is without merit.
In addition, the defendant is the real estate of this case.