logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.18 2014가합10994
매매대금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 11, 201, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff sold the instant real estate D and two parcels (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Plaintiff for KRW 4 billion, and received a total of KRW 680 million from the Plaintiff as indicated in the following table. On December 19, 201, Nonparty E and F, and on March 26, 2012, the said sales contract was revoked by selling the instant real estate to Nonparty E and G representative director H, and on April 11, 2013, by selling the instant real estate to Nonparty A representative director I, Co., Ltd.

On March 15, 2012, the recipient of the table was paid. Nonparty 2, on March 15, 201, is jointly and severally liable to pay Nonparty 2, 3,000,000 won to the Plaintiff on April 6, 2012, Defendant B 80,000,000 won on April 27, 2012, on April 201, 201, Nonparty 2, 3,000,000 won (payment for lease deposit) and KRW 3,00,000 won on April 28, 2012 (payment for lease deposit), Nonparty 2, 3,000,000 won on April 28, 2012, Nonparty 2, 4,000,000 won on May 11, 2012, Nonparty 61, 2,500,000 won on the part of Defendant B, Nonparty 61,615,2000 million won.

B. 1) In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings as to the claim against Defendant B and C, the parties to the above sales contract are both the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (the Defendant Co., Ltd. before the change to Defendant A; hereinafter “Defendant

Since the facts are recognized, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B and C, which differs from this premise, is without merit to further examine the claim against the Defendant Company. 2) It is insufficient to recognize the fact that each of the above table was paid as a part of the above sales price only with respect to the claim against the Defendant Company, as stated in the evidence No. 10-1 through No. 16, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it.

arrow