(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나52264

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나52264

계약금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to sell Pyeongtaek-si B 4.13 (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant to KRW 198 million, and the down payment of KRW 198 million (i.e., 10% of the parcelling-out price) is paid on the date of concluding a contract, and the remainder of the intermediate payment of KRW 118.8 million (i.e., 60% of the parcelling-out price) is paid on six occasions from August 25, 2014 to September 25, 2015. The remainder payment of KRW 59.4 million (=30% of the purchase price) is to be paid on six occasions.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 19.8 million in accordance with the instant sales contract, and did not pay the intermediate payment and the balance at all thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted and determined that at the time of the contract for sale in this case, the defendant's employee heard the phrase "it is possible to lend a loan from a commercial bank to 60-70% of the total sale price," and purchased three bonds, such as this case's house and B 801 and 1201. Since the government's loan regulations after the contract for sale in this case were reduced to less than 60% of the sale price, the plaintiff and the defendant agreed that only the sale in this case's house shall be maintained and the contract for sale in this case's house shall be cancelled, so the defendant is obliged to refund the down payment of KRW 198 million to the plaintiff.

However, even upon examining all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cancel the sales contract of the instant housing.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff agreed to return the down payment of KRW 19.8 million. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance differs from this conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가합30746

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.04.29 2014가단66706

-서울북부지방법원 2017.08.24 2016가합24110

-수원지방법원 2014.10.31 2013가단218398

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.06.05 2012가합64876