(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2016가단304801

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) 부산지방법원 2016.04.28 2016가단304801

건물명도

Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a sales contract to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant with the purchase price of KRW 1.3 billion.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million up to October 30, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 100 million up to November 30, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 1 billion up to November 30, 2015, by December 31, 2015.

B. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 3 million on September 2, 2015 and KRW 8 million on September 5, 2015, but did not pay the remainder of the purchase price.

C. The Defendant is running a coffee shop and head office in the instant building.

On December 23, 2015 and January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the rescission of the instant sales contract on the grounds that the instant sales contract was unpaid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant sales contract was cancelled due to the Defendant’s failure to pay the purchase price.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff as a removal of interference based on the restoration to original state or ownership.

B. The defendant sub-leases the remainder of the building of this case, excluding the pre-paid part of the coffee shop, to pay the purchase price in installments, and the plaintiff did not cooperate in the sub-lease contract. The plaintiff's right to cancel is not legitimate, but the plaintiff's right to cancel is not legitimate. However, as seen above, the contract of this case specifically states the method of payment of the purchase price, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, the defendant's assertion

Although the defendant asserts that only one-third of the building of this case is possessed, the defendant of this case.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.01.25 2016가단7300

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단55575

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.18 2015가단5396091

-대전지방법원 2016.11.24 2015가단218874

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.05.02 2017가합102128