(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.18 2017가단5050733

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.18 2017가단5050733

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition (1) Trade subject matter: The details of trade subject matter shall be as follows, and detailed details shall be attached:

1. The term “gold punishment” means the gold punishment taken over by the defendant from C;

(2) The purchase price: The total amount of KRW 350 million shall be KRW 350 million and shall be paid as follows:

1. Payment of 100 million won as the down payment on the date of the contract;

2. 250 million won shall be paid by March 15, 2013.

On February 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the sale and purchase (hereinafter referred to as the “sale of this case”) with the content that the Plaintiff purchases gold bars from the Defendant to manufacture the astronomical Air-conditioning Facilities (hereinafter referred to as “the gold bars”).

The main contents are as follows:

B. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary lending agreement with the Defendant on KRW 350 million in order to secure the payment of the instant purchase price, and made and issued a notarial deed on it to the Defendant.

C. On June 13, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the gold-type ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff upon the conclusion of the instant sales contract with the custodian D and E, who kept the instant gold-type.

However, as seen later, D and E do not recognize the transfer of gold punishment on the grounds that the ownership of gold punishment is still against the above companies because they did not pay the production price of gold punishment.

On the other hand, on October 16, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract of transfer with the transferor C to obtain the amount of gold as stated in the attached Table 1.

Despite C’s notification of transfer on October 2012 and Defendant’s notification of suspension of the use of gold on December 2012, 2012, D and E sent reply to the purport that the said transfer contract is null and void on the ground that no production price for gold is paid to the Defendant on December 2012, 2012, and the ownership of gold is for the said company.

After that, D, on December 17, 2013, is listed in attached Form 2 against C, a stock company.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.31 2019나41746

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.04.09 2014나3453

-전주지방법원 2018.01.16 2016고단491

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.03.21 2017가단2666