logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.05.10 2014가단204587
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 30, 2014 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that the defendant, on behalf of the plaintiff, entered into a sales contract with the non-party C to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet on July 16, 2008 (hereinafter "the instant sales contract"), and the sales contract prepared between the plaintiff and C, entered the sales contract with the plaintiff as KRW 80,000,000,000, and the plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on each of the above real estate on July 18, 2008, and obtained a loan of KRW 100,000 from the Gangwon Livestock Cooperative as security, there is

2. The summary of the party’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim, and the Plaintiff, even though the purchase price under the instant sales contract was KRW 80,000,00,000. However, the Defendant claimed the return of KRW 420,000,000,000, which was obtained by fraudulent means to the Plaintiff as KRW 1220,000,000,000, and acquired by fraudulent means, the Defendant made a multilateral contract with the content that the purchase price under the instant sales contract was KRW 120,00,000,00

3. Determination

A. First, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in light of the health stand, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, witness D’s testimony, and each request to submit financial information to the KB National Bank to the KB National Bank to the court of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant paid KRW 120,000,000 as the sales price, and the fact that the sales price is indicated as KRW 80,000 under the sales contract of this case, and that there is no other sales contract in addition to the sales contract of this case, and that the broker testified that the sales price of this case is KRW 8,00,000,000,000, the sales price of this case is KRW 8,000.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence revealed in the above facts, the Defendant deceivings the Plaintiff as KRW 120,000,000, even though the purchase price was KRW 80,000.

arrow