beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. On April 2, 2007, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with Defendant C with the content that the purchase price shall be KRW 400 million for the portion of the Plaintiffs’ share of forest E 10,130 square meters in Gwangju-si, and the down payment shall be KRW 50 million for the contract date, the intermediate payment of KRW 250 million for the intermediate payment of KRW 200 million on May 23, 2007, and the remainder of KRW 100 million for the payment on February 29, 2009 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). There is no dispute between the parties.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion is that Defendant C shall pay KRW 345 million out of the purchase price of KRW 400 million and shall not pay the remainder of KRW 55 million. Although the sales contract of this case is in the name of Defendant C, the actual purchaser is the Defendants, including Defendant D, and thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay KRW 27.5 million to each of the plaintiffs.
B. The main intent of the Defendants’ assertion was to pay the purchase price stipulated in the instant sales contract to the Plaintiffs.
3. In full view of the reasoning of the argument in the evidence No. 4 as to the instant case, the plaintiff Eul, the mother of the plaintiff Eul, as a legal representative of the plaintiff Eul, has received the purchase price under the instant sales contract as a minor, and the defendant Eul finally paid the plaintiff Eul KRW 35 million on July 5, 2010, and the receipt received from the plaintiff Eul shall be paid KRW 35 million to the plaintiff Eul, and the receipt received from the plaintiff Eul shall be paid KRW 35 million as additional money in addition to the sale balance. According to the above facts of recognition, it may be inferred that the defendant Eul already paid the remaining purchase price to the plaintiffs before paying the above KRW 35 million. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and the defendant's defense is with merit.
[This Court Decision 2014Da14213 (U.S. District Court Decision 2016Na57281, Supreme Court Decision 2017Da227240, which is a related civil case, has paid the purchase amount in full.