beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the selector are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 19, 2010, Defendant and E (F, G, and Selection C’s agents) are “the primary sales contract with H acting for Plaintiff and Selection D” under the following terms:
AB concluded the agreement.
(1) Object real estate: 483,350,000 won down payment from among 4,562 square meters of I forest land in Pakistan: 72,502,500 won shall be paid at the time of a contract.
Any balance: 410,847,500 won shall be paid on December 19, 2010.
B, buyer A, and D, and one other. The objective real estate: J 248m2, K prior to K, and L previous 60m2m2: 10,000,000 won down payment: 15,000,000 won shall be paid at the time of the contract.
Any balance: 85,000,000 won shall be paid on December 19, 2010.
The sale price of 1/2 shares out of 4,562 square meters of forest land in Pakistan-si: 483,350,000 won: 72,502,500 won shall be paid at the time of the contract.
Any balance: 410,847,500 won shall be paid on December 19, 2010.
seller F, G, buyer A, D et al.
B. On August 19, 2010, H paid to Defendant and E a total of KRW 160,005,000 for the down payment of the first sales contract, and the Defendant and E, on the same day, drafted a receipt of down payment in the name of the Plaintiff and the Appointor D.
C. On August 9, 2011, Defendant and E: (a) returned 80 million won out of the down payment under the first sales contract to H; and (b) written a payment note in the name of the Defendant and the Appointor C to pay the remaining 80 million won by September 23, 2011 (hereinafter “instant payment note”).
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul’s evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the witness H’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is apparent that September 23, 201, which was the time limit for payment set in the letter of payment in this case, was exceeded. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is in accordance with the letter of payment in this case.