logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.22 2017가단207788
매매잔대금 청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff owned No. 105, Dong-dong 105, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, and the plaintiff reconstructed the above apartment No. 108, Dong 1503 (hereinafter "the apartment of this case").

(2) On October 19, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 140,000,000 (=20,000 - 60,000,000), which deducts the Plaintiff’s debt 60,000 from the Plaintiff’s debt 60,000,000, among the Defendant and the Defendant on October 19, 2009. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 140,00,000 (20,000,000 - 60,000,000).

3) Accordingly, after completing the registration of initial ownership relating to the apartment of this case, the Plaintiff immediately concluded the registration of ownership transfer for the apartment of this case with respect to the Defendant on October 19, 2009. 4) Thereafter, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and F agreed to additionally deduct the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 90,000,000 from the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 140,000.

5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000 (i.e., KRW 140,000,000 - KRW 90,000) and damages for delay thereof. (ii) The Defendant’s assertion 1) while having a claim against F, the Plaintiff was planning to purchase the apartment of this case due to F, while the Defendant was holding a claim against F. The Defendant planned to purchase the apartment of this case from F, but instead, offered that the Plaintiff would bear the share necessary for the sale of the apartment of this case and receive the ownership of the apartment of this case from the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant consented thereto.

2) After that, the Defendant borne the shares necessary for the sale of the apartment in this case on behalf of the Plaintiff, and received the ownership of the apartment in this case from the Plaintiff, and accordingly, the Defendant’s claim against F and F’s claim against the Plaintiff was settled and extinguished en bloc. 3) Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. Determination

(a) Written evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and No. 1.

arrow