(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.26 2015나2007914

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) 서울고등법원 2015.06.26 2015나2007914

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-4 through 9, 13, 14, and 17:

On December 20, 2010, the plaintiff was the representative of the defendant as of December 20, 2010, B (H) who was the representative of the defendant at the time of the sales contract B (H) is the name of B (I) who is the representative of the defendant.

Although the defendant asserts that B was not the representative of the defendant, according to each of the above evidence, B can sufficiently recognize that it was the legitimate representative of the defendant at the time of the contract of this case.

Between Dongcheon-si, E, the Defendant’s ownership of KRW 250 million, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million and KRW 100 million, shall be purchased at KRW 250,000,000,000,000 and KRW 100,000,000:

As stated in the foregoing paragraph, a sales contract was concluded on January 31, 201 to pay the balance of KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, Defendant, and D (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. D had a loan claim amounting to KRW 50 million against the Defendant. However, the Defendant agreed to sell the instant real estate to D by setting the amount of KRW 42 million as totaling KRW 100 million upon D’s previous purchaser of the instant real estate to KRW 100,000,000, in the event that D pays to F instead of F, the amount of each of the above credit amount of KRW 100,000,000,000 as the purchase price.

After that, the Defendant demanded that D sell the instant real estate to the Plaintiff as the purchase price.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff owned the claim amounting to KRW 170 million against D. The Plaintiff, the Defendant, and D agreed to set off part of the claim amounting to KRW 100 million against D by transferring the claim amounting to KRW 100 million against the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

However, the purchase price agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was KRW 20 million, but this case.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단108984

-제주지방법원 2017.11.07 2016가단56631

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.01.26 2015가합1171

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014가합51937

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.14 2014가단257236