(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.21 2016나53319

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.21 2016나53319

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the deceased on the condition that the Plaintiff shall purchase GJ 142 square meters from the deceased at the time of Jinju, and that the down payment of KRW 20 million shall be paid on April 21, 2006 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff may not claim the return of the down payment if the Plaintiff violated the contract, and the Plaintiff agreed to refund twice the down payment if the deceased violated the contract.

B. The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 20 million on the day of the instant sales contract, but did not pay any balance thereafter.

C. On April 25, 2006, the Deceased did not pay any balance to the Plaintiff by May 1, 2006, the instant sales contract was rescinded, and the down payment was expressed by the intent that the deceased will revert to the deceased according to the penalty clause.

On May 19, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the deceased entered into the instant sales contract with the intent to confiscate down payment from the beginning to the end of the contract, and that on May 19, 2006, the deceased sent to the Plaintiff the same content certificate as the attached Form No. 3 (hereinafter “instant content certificate”).

E. The Deceased died on December 14, 2015, and the Defendants inherited the deceased’s property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 7 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the cause of the Plaintiff’s assertion stated the content certification of the instant case only on the return of the down payment without mentioning the cancellation of the contract and the forfeiture of the down payment, so the intention of cancelling the existing contract and forfeiture of the down payment should be deemed to have been withdrawn, and it does not discuss whether or not the Plaintiff and the Defendant have returned the down payment and the down payment in light of the status of H participating in the contract, etc.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.10 2013가단5181530

-대구지방법원경주지원 2015.04.24 2014가단4388

-인천지방법원 2018.12.20 2014가합61179

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.10.20 2015가단10958

-춘천지방법원 2020.11.26 2019나53690