logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.10.16 2019가단5603
분양대금반환
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) On April 24, 2016, the Plaintiff was scheduled to construct D (hereinafter “instant building”) to be a new building between the Defendant and the Defendant, and Ulsan-gu C (hereinafter “instant building”).

(E) As to the instant officetel F, the Real Estate Supply Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant officetel Agreement”).

(2) According to the instant officetel contract, the sales price to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 134.4 million. Among them, KRW 13.44 million shall be paid on the contract date, and the intermediate payment shall be paid on October 30, 2016 and KRW 13.44 million shall be paid on April 30, 2017, and the intermediate payment shall be October 30, 2017, respectively.

B. 1) On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a real estate supply contract with the Defendant for the first floor H of the instant building G commercial building (hereinafter “instant commercial building contract”). The instant officetel contract and the instant commercial building contract are collectively referred to as “each of the instant contracts”

(2) According to the instant shopping mall contract, the sales price to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is KRW 71,677,00,000, and the down payment is KRW 71,677,000 among the down payment, and the intermediate payment is paid on October 30, 2016, and the intermediate payment is paid on April 30, 2017, and October 30, 2017, respectively, on April 30, 2018, and KRW 71,67,000 as of August 30, 2018.

C. 1) The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 1,344,00,00 on the date of concluding the instant officetel contract, and paid the down payment of KRW 71,677,00 on the date of concluding the instant commercial building contract. 2) On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into an intermediate payment loan agreement with the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s principal agent, and the intermediate payment was paid to the Defendant as a loan under the instant loan agreement on each of the payment dates. The Defendant paid the down payment interest.

The main provisions of each contract of this case are as follows.

arrow