logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단11799
투자금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts that there exists no dispute with each other;

A. On December 29, 2006, the Defendant concluded a contract with C to purchase multi-household 101 on the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground.

The purchase price is KRW 120,000,000, and the down payment is KRW 10,000,000,000,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment is KRW 20,000,000 on January 30, 2007, and the balance is KRW 90,000,000 (Provided, That the deposit is 40,000,000,000) on February 26, 2007.

B. On February 28, 2007, after the Defendant paid the above purchase price in full, the Defendant registered the transfer of the above real estate in the name of the Defendant.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion was jointly purchased by the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff agreed to jointly purchase the remainder of the purchase price (50,000,000,000, which remains after deducting the key money for lease on a deposit basis). Of which, 20,000 won was paid by the Plaintiff, and 30,000,000 won was paid by the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff agreed to pay interest on the loan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,00,00 among the remainder of the loan, and paid KRW 6,209,930 as interest on the loan under the name of the Defendant. However, since the said real estate was subject to redevelopment, it is true that the Defendant was obligated to jointly purchase the said real estate by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, on February 28, 2007, the balance payment date, KRW 20,000,000 among the remainder, received a loan from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000 out of the remainder.

However, while the Plaintiff was willing to omit at a joint purchaser, the Plaintiff made a request to return KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff to bear interest, and received a loan of KRW 30,000,000 in the name of Defendant E, Defendant mother, and paid to the Plaintiff around November 2007.

Therefore, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he fully returned the purchase price that the plaintiff shared.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 out of the remainder, and the above fact.

arrow