logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.29 2015나37942
매매대금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the Defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs are co-owners (Plaintiff A3/5 shares, Plaintiff B2/5 shares) of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), and leased each of the instant real estate to the Defendant on December 17, 2007 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million and KRW 3 million per month.

B. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell each of the instant real estate in KRW 700 million.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

The Plaintiffs received KRW 630 million in total from the Defendant, including KRW 10 million on June 19, 2014, KRW 500 million on June 23, 2014, and KRW 630 million on December 8, 2014.

Of the purchase price, KRW 30 million was agreed in lieu of the payment of the lease deposit to be returned to the Defendant by the Plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on June 23, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 3-4, Gap's evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the remaining sales amount of KRW 40 million ( KRW 70 million - KRW 630 million - KRW 30 million) and delay damages, which have been paid pursuant to the instant sales contract.

B. On the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant recognized the installation cost of each of the instant real estate leased to operate an industrial company and agreed to reduce the purchase price of KRW 40 million, and accordingly, asserted that the remainder of the purchase price to be paid to the Plaintiffs does not remain.

However, even according to H’s testimony, the purport of this case’s contract was that there was a reference for reduction in the amount of the purchase price, which is the most important part of the contract, to the parties to the contract, if there was a change in the amount of the purchase price.

arrow