매매대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part is that the “4183 square meters” under the second sentence of paragraph (a) of the first instance judgment as “6,965 square meters,” the “517 square meters” under the third sentence of paragraph (a) of the first instance judgment as “6,362 square meters,” and the “each real estate of this case before division” as “each real estate of this case before division.” The first head of paragraph (c) of Article 1 was divided as of April 24, 2003, and each real estate of this case before division was divided as of April 24, 2003. The land falling under the parcel number of the instant real estate before division was added to “4,183 square meters and 05,17 square meters (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”)” under the main sentence of paragraph (1) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in addition to adding the “6,365 square meters” under the second sentence of paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the purport of the entire argument as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the obligation of the Plaintiff to transfer ownership under the second sales contract of this case was fulfilled on October 29, 2003. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff by the Plaintiff, as shown in the attached Form No. 5% of the sales payment pursuant to the second sales contract, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum per annum under the Civil Act, as shown in the attached Form, and the amount of the principal remaining after appropriation of payment, as well as the damages for delay.
B. The defendant's defense against the defendant's defense of payment was suspended by the deadline for the payment of the remaining purchase and sale price. Accordingly, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff paid the remaining purchase and sale price of KRW 580,000,000 in full from February 26, 2004 to December 29, 2006.
First, we examine whether the Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, excluding KRW 550,000,000,000, which was paid to the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff of No. 4-6 and No. 13-7 in the original evidence No. 4-6 and No. 13-7 denies the authenticity of the above receipt, but according to the result of this court's entrustment of appraisal to the appraiser J.