logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.04.12 2017나11273
매매대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, and the remaining part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for a new or additional argument that the defendant emphasized in this court, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. A new or additional part;

A. The part of the judgment of the first instance court on the ground of the claim for the payment of the remainder of the sale is 15,000,000 won (D lease deposit) that “the Plaintiff is a person who is a person who is entitled to the deduction of the Plaintiff” (the Plaintiff’s lease contract with D as to the second floor of the building in this case and equivalent to the down payment received from D).

B. The following is added to the back part of the judgment of the first instance court, 100,000 won, 10,000 won. The Defendant asserts that the above reduction was made in accordance with a general price interest rate in the course of trade.

However, it is difficult to say that it is general to reduce the seller's proposed amount as the sale price by 100 million won without any particular reason.

Rather, in light of the following points, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s assertion at the time of the first sales contract reduced KRW 100 million by taking into account the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant and the loan problems.

The witness E of the first instance court of the 2010s 2007 testimony that the 30s 30s 40s 40s 140s 140s 14

The land of this case was already registered as a collateral (refer to the evidence No. 3-2, No. 3-3) that was established by the plaintiff after being loaned from the Suhyup, and thus, the first sale contract was concluded on the premise of acquiring the obligation, and thus, receiving a loan from the Suhyup is the first sale contract.

arrow