(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나5675 | 리걸엔진

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 2016.05.18 2015나5675

소유권이전등기말소

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff newly built 19 households of C2 apartment units, including apartment units listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and completed registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff regarding the instant apartment units.

B. On May 7, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant apartment in KRW 120 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant apartment to the Defendant on the following day.

On the other hand, on May 8, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million out of KRW 120 million, and around that time, delivered the instant apartment by the Plaintiff.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 50 million on several occasions, and notified the Defendant of the content certification on August 26, 2014 that “The ownership of the instant apartment shall be restored to its original state until August 31, 2014,” and the notification reached the Defendant around that time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant received the claim for the remainder payment obligations under the instant sales contract from the Plaintiff who performed the obligation to deliver and transfer ownership of the instant apartment (hereinafter “the remainder payment obligation”), but failed to perform the obligation to pay the remainder within a reasonable period thereafter, and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to the right to rescind the instant sales contract, and the content certification, which was August 26, 2014, stating the intention to rescind the instant sales contract, reached the Defendant around that time, is identical to the foregoing. Accordingly, the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded around August 26, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant cancels the sales contract of this case to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.11.16 2014가합204617

-인천지방법원 2022. 1. 12. 선고 2021가단225691 판결

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.01 2017나521

-대전지방법원 2017.10.11 2014가합3720

-수원지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단45726