beta
Text
1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) each of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 193,273,973 and its amount from April 10, 2014 to April 22, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 10, 2013, the Plaintiffs sold 987/4,212 shares of each of the 4,212 square meters and 1/2 shares of each of the 55 square meters of land E and land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant purchase and sale contract”) in the amount of KRW 700 million (hereinafter “instant purchase and sale contract”). The down payment of KRW 70 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 230 million on May 20, 2013, and the remainder of KRW 400 million on June 20, 2013, each of the remaining 40 million amounts to KRW 704 square meters of land owned by the Defendant, in lieu of the payment of the remainder, and the agreement was concluded to transfer the ownership of each of the instant land to the Plaintiffs.
B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs delivered the instant land to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant thereto on July 1, 2013, and the Defendant paid each of the Plaintiffs KRW 70 million on May 10, 2013, and KRW 230 million on May 20, 2013, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant remaining substitute real estate in the name of Plaintiff B on July 10, 2013.
However, on September 12, 2013, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was made for the acquisition of public land on September 12, 2013.
C. Among the real estate used for the remainder of this case, H had been used as the office of the I Research Council prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the Defendant did not deliver the said building to the Plaintiffs even after the payment date of the remainder.
Plaintiff
B around February 25, 2014, the Defendant demanded the Defendant to present H in the above building and deliver it until March 5, 2014, and the Plaintiffs continued to claim the delivery of the above building, but the Defendant failed to perform the above obligation. As such, the Plaintiffs were to cancel the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint in this case on the grounds of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.