(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가합556151

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가합556151

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s supplementary intervenor is Ein and the Plaintiff is the father of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor, and F is the mother of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor.

On May 20, 2016, the Defendant Intervenor entered into a sales contract with the Defendants to sell “Seoul Gangnam-gu G Apartment 102 Dong 1102 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) for KRW 900,000,000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The Defendants paid 90,000,000 won of the down payment, and 200,000,000 won of the intermediate payment on June 30, 2016 to the Defendant’s Intervenor.

Around August 1, 2016, the notice that the Plaintiff received the outstanding claim from the Defendant’s Intervenor for the instant sales contract (hereinafter “transfer of claim”) was sent to the Defendants around August 1, 2016.

Then, around August 6, 2016, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor notified the Plaintiff that there was no time to transfer the remainder claim under the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, around August 2016, the Defendants’ Intervenor, F, and H (F) deemed the Defendants to be the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor, F, and H (F) who was defective in raising a problem as follows.

The letter of commitment and letter (Evidence B) ① The apartment of this case is owned by the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, and the sales contract of this case on May 20, 2016 was concluded normally according to the intent of the Defendant’s assistant intervenor.

② Defendant Intervenor’s assistant intervenor, around July 2016, 2016, had an attorney-at-law met at the place where the Plaintiff was a law firm I, but did not transfer the apartment purchase price claims to either the Plaintiff or the attorney-at-law, and did not have any reason to transfer them. If such documents are prepared in the name of the seller, the Plaintiff and the attorney-at-law did not disclose the content to the Defendant Intervenor.

7. The instant sales contract between the Defendant’s assistant intervenor and the Defendant’s joint and several sureties, and H

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.09 2014가합573312

-서울서부지방법원 2018.01.23 2017나74

-인천지방법원 2019.03.29 2017가합76 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단83482

-서울남부지방법원 2017.12.19 2017가단11975