(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나12295

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) 제주지방법원 2018.08.22 2017나12295

약정금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation on this part is that the following was added to the second 23th (the end of the first 1-A) of the first instance judgment, and that the third 5th of the third 5 deposited the "each attorney-at-law account into an O's account, etc.", and the third 5th of the 3th 4th 4th 4th 4th 4th 5th 4th 4th 5th 4th 5th 4th 5th 4th 5th 4th 7th 7th 5th 5th 5th 4th 5th

In addition, Article 7 (2) of the Act shall not be collected all the sales proceeds (including provisional contract proceeds) without the approval of the Party A, and the sales proceeds shall be deposited into the bank account directly designated by the Party A by the sales contract.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the fourth generation of the loan of this case according to the sales agency contract of this case. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total of KRW 64 million and delay damages equivalent to the difference between each sales price and KRW 140 million pursuant to Article 5 of the sales agency contract of this case.

B. In the case of the instant sales contract by the Defendant, the sales price, including the down payment, should be transferred to the account of the owner L. However, since the remainder sales contract except for the sales contract for the instant lending G, the down payment for the sales contract for the instant lending G, is transferred to another account, it cannot be recognized.

Furthermore, the defendant has already paid 5 million won to the plaintiff as a fee.

3. Determination

A. 1) According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 2 of this case as to the cause of the claim, the sales price in each sales contract for each of the four households of the loan of this case is determined to be paid in Q account in the name of L. Thus, the fact that this part of the down payment of KRW 30 million was deposited in the above L account is as seen earlier, and therefore, the above households are the same.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.10.21 2014고단386

-인천지방법원 2019.04.19 2018가합55691

-서울동부지방법원 2020.09.17 2018가합106195

-인천지방법원 2015.04.17 2014노3864

-서울고등법원 2021.03.26 2020나2006601