logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.08.22 2018가단6900
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. At the time of November 28, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a contract to sell all of the management rights, company assets, equipment, etc. of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) controlled by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The sales price stipulated in the instant sales contract is the payment date of KRW 50,000,000 on November 14, 2017, the intermediate payment of KRW 150,000,000, and the payment date of KRW 150,000 on November 30, 2017, and the remainder of KRW 100,000 on December 29, 2017.

(Total Sales Price is KRW 3,140,000,000, and the Defendant’s side refers to the sales price to be paid in money to the Plaintiff, excluding various debts that the Plaintiff agreed to accept from the Plaintiff). Meanwhile, at the time of the conclusion of the above sales contract, the phrase “specific matters 5....” of the contract prepared by the parties, stating that “the Bank’s interest and the cost portion is borne by the Defendant and all liabilities are borne by the Defendant.”

C. On November 14, 2017, the Defendant paid 50,000,000 the down payment to the Plaintiff, and 150,000,000 won in the intermediate payment on November 30, 201, and did not pay the remainder by December 29, 201.

The Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay any balance over several occasions, but the Defendant only paid KRW 20,000,000 on March 22, 2018, and did not pay the remainder.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to restore the instant sales contract to its original state upon the Defendant’s failure to pay the remainder in the document claiming the rescission of the instant sales contract in violation of the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder.

However, since the expression of intent to have not existed from the beginning on the ground of the other party’s default is “exploitation”, the Plaintiff’s expression of intent is deemed “exploitation”

on March 27, 2019, stating the purport that the claim and the cause of the claim shall be stated, have been filed, and the above written statement shall contain:

3. The defendant was served on 29.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1,7.

arrow