logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.06 2017가단69923
부동산 계약금 반환 및 이자,피해액 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On October 9, 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with Defendant Construction Co., Ltd. (or, preliminary, and selectively, Defendant Slick Co., Ltd.) to be supplied with the exclusive use area of 106.934m2, each of 84.934m2, 1102, 110 dong 702, 702, and 116 703m2.

At the time, D, an employee of the Defendant Credit Construction Co., Ltd., concluded the above contract by providing that all of the 4 households may borrow an intermediate payment to the Plaintiff, but only two households may not borrow a loan. The two households applied for a loan and paid an intermediate payment. The instant 106 Dong 902 and 1102 did not pay an intermediate payment.

The Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 31,40,00,00,00 for down payment of KRW 13,400,000,000,000 for the Plaintiff paid on April 14, 2015, and KRW 26,950,00 in total, KRW 13,50,000,00 for the down payment of KRW 106,00,00,000 for the contract deposit of KRW 1102,50,00 for the 106, 106, and 1102

2. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find that D is an employee of the Defendant Completion Construction Co., Ltd. or D is able to lend all four households, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit even if it is no longer examined.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow