(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.10.14 2015가합57122

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) 인천지방법원 2016.10.14 2015가합57122

계약금반환 등 청구의 소

Text

1. As to KRW 720,00,000 and KRW 360,00,00 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall have 5% per annum from May 7, 2015 to September 24, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) stating that the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 3.6 billion on a deposit basis, the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million shall be paid on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million shall be paid on May 20, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 3.14 billion shall be paid on July 30, 2015, the remainder of KRW 3.144 billion shall be paid on July 30, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 360 million on the day of the contract.

C. Article 5 of the sales contract of this case states that the seller shall pay the down payment to the seller before the buyer pays the intermediate payment to the seller, and the buyer may waive the down payment and rescind the contract. Article 6 states that the other party may demand in writing the seller or the purchaser to pay the down payment and cancel the contract if the buyer fails to perform the contractual terms. The other party may claim damages arising from the cancellation of the contract to the other party, and the other party may claim damages from the rescission of the contract, and the other party shall be deemed as the basis

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) concluded a real estate sales contract with the Defendant and provided performance with the full purchase price on May 11, 2015 and July 30, 2015; (b) however, the Defendant did not fully prepare documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership; (c) the Defendant did not remove a building without permission which occupies the land subject to sale on the outstanding payment date; and (d) the Plaintiff’s obligation to transfer the land could not be fulfilled; and (e) the Plaintiff did not pay the purchase price.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018가단219829

-창원지방법원 2016.07.14 2015가단75301

-부산지방법원 2014.05.01 2013가합10799

-수원지방법원 2019.10.23 2018가단519102

-울산지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단64932