logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.22 2014가단52292
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 14, 2015 to December 22, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts - around February 2013, the Defendant entered into a joint project agreement with C (hereinafter, Nonparty Company) to newly construct and sell “E building”, a complex housing, in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Dong-gu D (hereinafter, “instant multi-family housing”).

The defendant under the above contract provided a site for the apartment house of this case, and the non-party company provided a financing for project costs.

- F, a director of the non-party company, recommended the Plaintiff to make a pre-sale contract by designating a good unit of Dong and heading, and on October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff received from F a seller’s column a written contract for the instant multi-family housing (hereinafter “the instant contract for sale”) written by the Plaintiff in the Defendant and buyer column, and deposited KRW 30 million in the agricultural bank account in the name of the Defendant.

- After that, F or Defendant did not designate the Plaintiff among the instant multi-family housing as the unit of Dong and unit of the instant multi-family housing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a pre-sale agreement with the Defendant on the instant multi-family housing, and paid the pre-sale payment. Since the Defendant failed to perform the pre-sale obligation, the Plaintiff was to cancel the pre-sale agreement.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 30 million won and delay damages for restitution.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not have the authority to pre-sale the apartment house of this case to F.

The seller's seal affixed to the sales contract of this case is not the defendant's seal.

C. (1) The judgment (1) is deemed to have the same seals affixed to the Defendant’s land brokerage commission and seal affixed to the instant sales contract (Evidence 6-2) that the Defendant et al. prepared to G and affixed to G, and the Defendant’s seal affixed to the instant sales contract (Evidence 2). As such, a letter stamped in the seller column of the instant sales contract is marked.

arrow