logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2016.08.26 2016가단561
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary claim was filed with the Defendants, which was registered as E-B-dong 201 (No. 201 of Young-si D 202; hereinafter “instant housing”) located in E-B-dong 201 at the time of permanent residence where the Plaintiff had already sold the instant housing at KRW 159 million.

However, even though the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B was completed on January 24, 2014 pursuant to the above sales contract, the Defendants did not pay up to now the remainder of KRW 76 million, excluding KRW 54 million, which was exempted by the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and KRW 29 million, which was exempted by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 76 million won and damages for delay.

B. The sales contract, such as the primary claim, was not concluded even if the preliminary claim was made.

Even if the Defendants acquired the instant housing, and thereby, at least 130 million won, at a minimum of the objective value of the instant housing, obtained the instant housing, the amount of KRW 76 million remaining after deducting the amount of KRW 54 million, the settlement of which has been completed as above, is unjust and is obliged to return the said amount to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. While examining the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as to the primary claim, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s primary claim against the Defendants, which is premised on the existence of the above sales contract, cannot be accepted.

B. The evidence presented in the instant case alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C acquired the instant housing benefits (the instant housing does not have a registration of transfer in the name of Defendant C with respect to the instant housing) and the instant housing in the name of Defendant B.

arrow