logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.16 2016가단918
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 12, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the instant land and paid down payment of KRW 32,000,000 to the Defendant for the purpose of running a multi-family housing development project (hereinafter “instant project”) on the land in Gangseo-si B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”).

The main contents of the above sales contract are as follows:

The purchase price: KRW 320,00,000 for down payment of KRW 30,000 for down payment, KRW 288,000 on the day after the completion of the entire contract, shall be paid not later than October 30, 2006. The defendant shall submit two copies of the written consent to land use necessary for a project and two copies of the certificate of personal seal impression (use only for authorization or permission) for the approval of land use in order for the plaintiff to promote the business to build multi-family housing after the conclusion of this contract.

Provided, That when the plaintiff requests additional submission, the defendant shall submit it immediately.

(The Defendant’s obligation under Article 4 and the proviso below (hereinafter “instant obligation to cooperate”). In the event the Defendant terminates even while underway, the Defendant shall compensate for all damages arising from the discontinuance of the business, and in the event that the performance of the contract is impossible due to the Plaintiff’s breach of the contract, the Defendant may automatically terminate the instant contract without returning the down payment.

(Article 6. hereinafter referred to as “instant confiscation clause”). B.

(1) On August 7, 2007, the Plaintiff applied for the approval of the housing construction project plan of the instant case between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on or around August 7, 2007, but the Plaintiff rejected the said application on the grounds that he did not submit a written consent for land use, and submitted related documents for prior consultation on the approval of the project plan of multi-family housing construction. (2) On or after the said application, the Plaintiff issued two copies of a new certificate of personal seal impression necessary for the authorization and permission to the Defendant on July 9, 2007 and September 10, 2007.

arrow