logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.08.26 2019가단95785
분양대금 반환 청구의 소
Text

The Defendants jointly share KRW 40,000,000 with the Plaintiff, and Defendant B’s house from September 4, 2018.

Reasons

1. The facts in the separate sheet of the judgment on the cause of the claim (a abbreviationd name is used as it is) do not conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant union, or can be recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings and the entries and images of the evidence Nos. 1 through

(2) The court below held that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were liable to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 4, 2018 to November 25, 2019, the Defendant Union, a delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, shall be 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Procedure Act until January 22, 2020, and 12% per annum as stipulated in the Special Act on the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the assertion of the defendant union

A. According to the instant performance agreement, according to the purport of the assertion, the Defendant Union should return KRW 68,00,000 to the Plaintiff by the method of prompt execution among the following methods: (a) contracting the instant loan at KRW 12,00,000; (b) re-saleing the instant loan at the market price equivalent to the instant loan; and (c) lending the instant loan after the completion of construction.

The Defendant Union repaid KRW 28,00,000,000, much more than 3,409,431 won, which can be repaid to the Plaintiff due to the execution of the loan in accordance with the instant performance agreement.

In addition, even if according to the implementation agreement of this case, 40,000,000 won (=68,000,000 won - 28,000,000 won) remaining after performing the above loan due to the execution of the loan of this case is sufficient when the defendant union pays to the plaintiff under the condition of lease or sale of the loan of this case.

However, since the loan of this case is not leased or sold at present, the above conditions have not been fulfilled.

arrow