beta
Text
1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Eastern District Court No. 1302.
Reasons
1. On June 30, 2003, the Defendant paid KRW 3,965,230 of the school site charges on the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwangjin-dong 3806 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
On November 3, 2004, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract for the right to sell an apartment of this case with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 243,565,00 (=the purchase price of KRW 163,565,000,000, which was paid by the Defendant out of the purchase price).
The sales contract on the sales contract for the above sales right includes the above sales right and the charges for the above school site paid by the defendant.
The Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City deposited the principal amount of KRW 5,007,680 (= principal amount of KRW 3,965,230, KRW 1,042,450) on April 22, 2010 with the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 1302, the principal amount of the school site charges on the apartment of this case (=interest 3,965,230, KRW 1,042,450) with the Plaintiff or
(The right to claim the payment of the deposit money ("the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. According to the above facts of the determination, it is reasonable to view that the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit belongs to the Plaintiff, and as long as the Defendant asserts that the other depositor of the deposit for repayment of relative uncertainty has the right to claim the payment of the deposit, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.
(A) The Defendant asserts that the purchase price of the above sales right does not include the charge for school site paid by the Defendant, but this is against the content of the sales contract, and it is reasonable to determine that there exists an agreement as stated in the sales contract, as long as there is no assertion or proof as to special circumstances to deny the contents of the disposal document. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit)
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.