logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단222019
매매대금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 60,000,000 and the interest rate therefor from November 3, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The Defendants, who made a confession, only submitted a written reply stating the judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim, and did not submit a document stating specific answers to the Plaintiffs’ alleged facts. They are deemed to have led to confession as to the following facts because they were not present on the date of pleading more than twice.

A. On March 3, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendants to sell KRW 2,270,000,000 to the Defendants for sale of KRW 42,78 square meters of F forest land in Sejong-si, KRW 1,607 square meters of G, and KRW 1,632 square meters prior to H (hereinafter “instant land”).

The Defendants paid the Plaintiffs KRW 2,250,000,000, out of the purchase price, and did not pay the remainder KRW 20,000,000.

B. The Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed to contribute each amount of KRW 140,000,000 to handle the graveyard issues on the instant land. The Defendants contributed only KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendants.

The Defendants agreed to pay to the Plaintiffs KRW 40,000,000, which was not contributed on March 30, 2015.

2. According to the above facts, the Defendants are obligated to pay the purchase price unpaid to the Plaintiffs and the agreed amount to be paid in order to deal with graveyard issues in accordance with the sales contract and the payment agreement of contributions.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the total amount of KRW 60,000,000 (the purchase price of KRW 20,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 3, 2015 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiffs seek.

3. The plaintiffs' claims for the decision are justified.

arrow