logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원제천지원 2017.12.21 2017가합80
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the Plaintiff Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) and B, on December 9, 2015, purchased from the Defendants a total of 28 parcels of land, including each of the instant parcels of land and buildings thereon, and 7,500,000,000,000, in 200 won (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and B died on July 12, 2017, while the instant lawsuit was pending, and their bereaved family members died on July 12, 2017, respectively.

According to the above facts, unless there are special circumstances, the defendants are paid KRW 4,800,000 from the plaintiffs as requested by the plaintiffs, and at the same time they are obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for each of the land of this case as a result of the sale of this case.

B. As the Defendants asserted that the instant sales contract had been rescinded, it is reasonable to view that the instant sales contract was lawfully rescinded on July 19, 2017, when comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 as stated in the evidence No. 1, and that the instant sales contract was duly rescinded on July 19, 2017, which was delivered to the Plaintiffs by the reply of July 14, 2017.

1) The remainder payment date on the date of the instant sales contract is within 45 days from the date of conclusion of the contract. 2) The Plaintiffs did not pay any balance from December 9, 2015, which was 45 days after the date of conclusion of the instant sales contract, to January 23, 2016, and thereafter, did not pay the remainder by the date of closing argument of the instant case.

3. On July 14, 2017, after a considerable period of time has elapsed from the outstanding payment date of the instant sales contract, the Defendants submitted a written reply to the Plaintiffs’ complaint to this court. The said written reply was served on July 19, 2017 on the Plaintiffs.

The above reply shall be valid.

arrow