logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.05.14 2018가단251848
건물명도(인도)등청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2018, the Plaintiffs purchased 2.2 billion won (the contract amount of KRW 220 million, the remainder of KRW 1.980 million, and the remainder of KRW 1.980 million), from the Defendant, the F land and its ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate” in combination with the land”) in Ansan-gu and the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The terms relating to the instant sales contract are as follows.

Article 7 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages) If a seller or buyer has defaulted on the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the other party may notify in writing the person who has defaulted on the contract and cancel the contract.

In addition, the parties to the contract may claim damages from the other party due to the cancellation of the contract, and the contract deposit shall be considered as compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.

Matters of special agreement

3. will be transferred in the current lease relationship under the cost and responsibility of the lessor.

(hereinafter omitted)

4. The balance shall be deposited under the joint name with a third party (bank) and the seller shall receive the balance at the time of completion of delivery by the seller.

B. On the date of the contract, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 200 million. The Plaintiffs offered the instant real estate as security and received the loan, and deposited KRW 200 million in the bank as indicated in the special agreement on May 31, 2018, and paid the remainder KRW 1.78 billion to the Defendant.

The Plaintiffs completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant real estate on May 31, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was to notify the Defendant of the purchase of the instant real estate in order to directly use or lease the instant real estate by removing the existing building and constructing a new building.

Accordingly, the Defendant decided to deliver 200 square meters of one story among the instant real estate leased to G by August 30, 2018 under his own cost and responsibility.

However, the defendant's obligations.

arrow