logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.04.24 2012나13663
매매대금
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 20, 2010, D (the mother of Plaintiff A) on behalf of the Plaintiffs, concluded a contract with the Defendant to sell the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to KRW 478 million (hereinafter “instant contract”). The contract deposit amount of KRW 20 million is paid on the date of the contract, and part of the remainder is paid on the date of the contract, and the Defendant’s succession to the duty to return the lease deposit of KRW 177 million with respect to the instant real estate, and the remainder is paid to KRW 281 million on February 25, 2010.

B. On February 20, 2010, the Defendant, including transfer of ownership, paid each of the Plaintiffs the remainder of KRW 281 million on February 25, 2010, and KRW 200 million on February 25, 2010, succeeded to the obligation to refund the lease deposit for the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on February 25, 2010.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 8, 9, and 13 (including serial documentary evidence)

2. The parties' assertion;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate and agreed to additionally pay the Plaintiffs KRW 19.5 million in addition to the purchase price of KRW 478 million and additionally pay KRW 19.5 million to the Plaintiffs. As such, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 19.5 million to the Plaintiffs.

(1) The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant did not pay part of the purchase price of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and arranged the allegation to the effect above).

The defendant's assertion concluded two contracts with D on behalf of the plaintiffs on the real estate of this case. At the time of concluding the first sales contract, the plaintiffs were granted building permission on the date of payment of part payments.

arrow