(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.10 2015나2014127

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) 서울고등법원 2016.03.10 2015나2014127

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant the purchase price of KRW 3,470,000,000 for KRW 3,470,000 for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiff sold the instant real estate sales contract to the Defendant for KRW 1296 square meters and the above ground reinforced concrete structure (framed) and Class 2 neighborhood living facilities and education and research facilities on the five floors of Daegu-gu C, Daegu-gu and the aforesaid ground slabtic roof (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate of this case to the Defendant as the head of the Daegu District Court No. 18670, which was the vice-branch of the District Court No. 18670.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and determination that the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff agreed to pay the value-added tax pursuant to the instant sales contract on two occasions on December 20, 2013 and December 31, 2013 after the instant sales contract, but failed to do so. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay the value-added tax of KRW 149,062,241 under the said agreement and the delay damages therefrom.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness D of the first instance trial corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant agreed to bear the value-added tax pursuant to the instant sales contract, and there is no other evidence to prove that the testimony of the witness D of the first instance trial corresponds to the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant agreed to bear the value-added tax according to the sales contract of this case is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.05 2014가합510779

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.04.15 2014가단3148

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2005다58656,58663 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2016.01.15 2014가단249327

-서울고등법원 2015.12.11 2015나2018617