logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2020.01.30 2019가단109566
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the claims filed by the plaintiffs A against the defendant Gyeonggi-do and the plaintiffs against the defendant Sung-nam-do.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiffs, who received acquisition tax, etc., concluded a sales contract to purchase the second floor No. 1 (hereinafter “instant I commercial building”) of the H building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from J and K for KRW 1.5 billion on August 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid the purchase price in full until October 15, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

Plaintiff

A on October 15, 2014, Defendant Gyeonggi-do paid KRW 60,000,000, local education tax, KRW 60,000,000, and KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 69,000,00,00 for the instant I commercial buildings, and the Plaintiffs paid KRW 3,045,460, each of the total amount of the property tax, local resource and facility tax, and local education tax, from 2015 to 2018 at the time of Sungnam-do, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 3,045,460, respectively.

The ownership change relationship between the Lhoho Commercial Building (hereinafter “instant Lho commercial building”) and the I commercial building of this case, including the invalidity of the sales contract for the I commercial building of this case, are as follows. The ownership transfer registration for the I commercial building of this case was made to J and K on February 24, 201, and the owner of the I commercial building of this case was different.

On Aug. 17, 199, the owner of Lhoho Lake, I, on March 7, 2002, M (the entire N Shares transfer) M (OO on March 7, 201, and on October 15, 2014, Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff B P Co., Ltd (hereinafter “P”) leased all of the instant Lho Lake and the instant I commercial buildings to use them as Q coffee specialty, and upon entering into the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the lessor status of the said lease agreement between J, K and P.

P tried to terminate the lease contract for the instant I commercial building on the ground of business performance, and the Plaintiffs are in the process of preparing to relet the instant I commercial building, the section for exclusive use by other owners.

arrow