(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단153172

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) 서울북부지방법원 2017.12.14 2016가단153172

보충금(교환차액)등 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 7,500,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 3, 2015 to January 16, 2017.

Reasons

In short, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 32.5 million to the Plaintiff on the same day, and to pay the remainder of KRW 7.5 million to the Plaintiff by March 2, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, on the other hand, two copies of each letter (hereinafter “each letter of this case”) are written in the name of the defendant and C, which is the representative of the defendant and C, and one copy is delivered to the defendant, and the other copy was delivered to the plaintiff via D. The words “A and one other” are written in each letter issued to the plaintiff, and there is no such written statement in each letter issued to the defendant.

Address: Address E in the case of the strike-si in Gyeonggi-do: He shall file a report on the transfer of the goods of E and F to 350,000,000 won in the case of the strike-si without raising any objection, even though there is a civil or criminal problem that occurs later in the exchange of the above goods of the Cheong-gun in the Cheong-

Provided, however, the transfer of ownership does not raise any objection after the transfer of the registration and provisional registration to A who is a third party (civil or criminal). * The transfer of ownership shall issue the seal impression for sale once again to a person designated by the purchaser.

* The transfer of ownership and bank succession are until March 13, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14 (including serial numbers, and the defendant's assertion that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8 was altered, but no evidence exists to prove it), Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul witness witness witness witness's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) Determination on the claim for the refund of the exchange difference in this case (1) In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s name is indicated in the Defendant’s real estate sale certificate, and that the Plaintiff actually paid the Defendant the exchange difference to the Defendant, the Plaintiff is in the position of a party under the exchange contract with the Defendant and C, as well as the Defendant.

That is, the exchange contract will be 3 to 40,000 after the conclusion of the exchange contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2019.12.19 2019가합52235

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.29 2016나68184

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.01.28 2015가단19981

-대전지방법원 2019.10.23 2018나118709

-수원지방법원 2015.02.12 2013나52810