logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.22 2014가합44371
분양대금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant entered into a joint investment agreement with C to jointly purchase the land D and E (hereinafter “instant land”) and buildings on the ground of the above land to newly construct three and 24 households of multi-household houses on the land and to divide profits therefrom by selling them in units. Accordingly, the Defendant entered into a sales agreement with C to purchase the instant land and buildings on the instant land in KRW 2.7 billion, and to pay the down payment of KRW 400 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 2.3 billion on April 4, 2014, along with C around March 24, 2014.

B. On March 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C, called the Defendant’s agent, and I multi-household housing (hereinafter “multi-household housing in this case”) that will be newly built on the instant land, to purchase KRW 103 501 and 200 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 200 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract.

Since July 29, 2014, even though the Plaintiff decided to complete the instant multi-household house by the end of July 2014, the Plaintiff still failed to obtain the transfer of ownership from the original owner of the instant land, and the Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of the construction permit. This constitutes a serious breach of contract, and thus, notified the cancellation of the instant sales contract and filed a claim for the return of the sale price already paid.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion ① The Plaintiff paid the remainder of the sales contract with the original owner of the instant land and the building on its ground, which was delegated by the Defendant’s agent C with the authority to sell the instant multi-household house.

arrow