beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,50,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 11, 2015 to October 29, 2015 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the real estate indicated in the separate sheet on December 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
A) The Defendant sold the sales price at KRW 230,00,000 to the Defendant. On December 31, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the said real estate. The Defendant sought payment of KRW 150,000,000 out of the sales price, and the remainder was not paid. As such, the Defendant sought payment of KRW 80,000,000, the remainder was not paid. (2) The Plaintiff’s mother-child, who is the actual right holder of the instant real estate claimed by the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to sell and sell the instant real estate at KRW 170,000,000. However, in order to reduce the Defendant’s capital gains tax burden in the future, a sales contract stating the sales price at KRW 230,00,000, in a form to reduce the Defendant’s capital gains
On October 24, 2014, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 1,500,000,000, as the purchase price, and KRW 150,000,000 on December 31, 2014.
The Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to withhold the remainder of KRW 18,500,000 until the issue of the delivery of the tenants residing in the instant real estate was resolved. Since the Defendant paid KRW 2,00,000 to the tenants as director expenses and consolation money, the Defendant is only obligated to pay KRW 16,50,000,000, which deducts the said money, to the Plaintiff.
B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sold and purchased the instant real estate sales proceeds at KRW 170,00,000, and the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 16,50,000,00, based on the remainder of the sales proceeds, according to the following facts and circumstances, which are either the parties to the judgment, or recognized by the purport of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 4,8, and Eul evidence 2-6.
① On October 24, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 1,500,00 to C. The Plaintiff is one’s mother and the said money is the instant real estate transaction.