logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2014.04.04 2013가합3685
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2010, the Defendant agreed to sell to the Plaintiff and one other corporation the amount of KRW 30,738 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) for KRW 800,000,000,000 for down payment of KRW 80,000 on January 12, 2010, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000 on March 31, 2010, the remainder amount of KRW 670,000 is paid on May 30, 2010 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Defendant received each of the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 80,00,000 for down payment of KRW 80,000 on the same day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000 on March 31, 2010.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, who arranged the sale and purchase of the instant forest, obtained permission from Plaintiff D as a golf practice range, m3, and sports center, etc. (hereinafter “instant project”) to carry out the project (Evidence A 3; hereinafter “instant project outline”).

C. However, the instant forest was a place where it was difficult to implement the instant project because it falls under an urban area, green conservation area, and urban natural park area under the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and on April 24, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail (hereinafter “content-certified mail of April 24, 2013”) containing the content of asking “whether the instant outline of business is possible on the premise that the instant outline of business is included in the instant sales contract” (hereinafter “instant outline of business”).

Accordingly, on April 30, 2013, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail containing the content that “the Defendant may know the substance of the instant outline of business, and the Plaintiff delays the payment of the remainder for three years.”

E. Ultimately, the Plaintiff conspired with the Defendant and D to cause an error in the Plaintiff’s judgment by means of false words and behavior, knowing that it is impossible to realize the instant project.

Recognizing that it is alleged that it was lodged with an investigative agency, and the prosecution on December 17, 2013, D.

arrow