beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s Defendant’s case, including the Defendant’s Defendant’s Defendant’s case, 2018 tea 177 and the Defendant’s case (money).
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) purchased KRW 894 square meters in the purchase price of KRW 65,000,000,000 from Gyeong-gun, Gyeong-gun, who represented the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff; and (b) paid KRW 10,000,000 in the contract amounting to KRW 55,00,000 upon entering into a contract; (c) the remainder of KRW 5,00,000 by August 14, 2018 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and (d) paid KRW 10,00,000 in the deposit account in the name of his wife C on the same day.
B. On August 14, 2018, the Plaintiff resisted C with regard to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and C returned the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on September 12, 2018.
C. On October 12, 2018, the Defendant applied for a payment order against the Plaintiff seeking payment of penalty of KRW 6,500,000 as a result of the rescission of the instant sales contract, which was rendered by the Military Court 2018 tea177, the Military Court of Changwon District Court, 2018, and the delay damages, and received the said decision on October 16, 2018. The said payment order became final and conclusive on December 6, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The following circumstances revealed prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, the statement of the evidence and the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, that the Plaintiff did not deliver to C the power of attorney, seal imprint, certificate of personal seal imprint, etc. to conclude the instant sales contract. The Defendant also stated that C and C have the right of representation to conclude the instant sales contract on behalf of the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract without checking the power of attorney, certificate of personal seal imprint, etc., and only stated that C and C have the right of representation. In light of the fact that the seller column of the instant sales contract did not sign and seal imprint, it is reasonable to deem C had concluded the instant sales contract with the Defendant without legitimate authority. Thus, the instant sales contract is null and void.
Therefore, the payment order of this case is the defendant.