(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단17865

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) 울산지방법원 2017.04.18 2016가단17865

계약금 반환

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant’s agent to jointly purchase the land and buildings in Ulsan-gu E (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the purchase price of KRW 2 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The Plaintiffs paid KRW 200 million, which is part of the purchase price, to the Defendant.

B. On March 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs agreed to cancel the instant sales contract with Defendant D’s agent, and agreed to the refund of KRW 200 million paid by the Plaintiffs, as follows:

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). “The 200 million won sales contract shall be sold again after the completion of this real estate by the seller, and the seller agrees to refund the down payment to the buyer at the same time as the sales contract is concluded.”

C. On June 1, 2016, the building, among the instant real estate, was approved as completion around June 1, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including additional number), and the purport before oral argument

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the building among the real estate in this case was completed after the agreement in this case, and the defendant obtained a large amount of rent by leasing the building, and that the defendant, the seller, claiming the return of the down payment KRW 200 million, since it is no different from the sale after the completion of the real estate.

In the case of a juristic act to which a father was attached, if it is reasonable to consider that the non-performance of the obligation should not be made unless the facts indicated in the vice versa have occurred, it should be viewed as a condition, and if it is reasonable to consider that the obligation should not be performed even when the facts indicated have occurred and the non-performance of the obligation has become final and conclusive, it shall be deemed as determining the existence of the indicated fact as an indefinite period

In addition, certain facts are required for the repayment of the obligation already borne.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2019.05.17 2018가단332916

-대구지방법원 2014.12.18 2014가합5429

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.09 2018가단7558

-대법원 2015.10.15 2014다53158

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.08.25 2014나1970