beta
Text
1. The defendant shall pay 590,730,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from February 22, 2018 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Defendant, under the trade name of “C”, carried out a new construction and sale business (hereinafter “instant business”) of “F” (hereinafter “F”) on the ground D and E, Seopo-si, Jeju Special Self-Governing Province (hereinafter “C”), and the time frame of the instant hotel is a comprehensive liquidation construction corporation, and the fund manager is the Korea Asset Trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Asset Trust”).
Around May 2016, a supply contract was entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff will supply the instant hotel 523 and 623 (hereinafter “instant guest room”) totaling KRW 590,730,000 (=292,320,000, 298,410,000) (hereinafter “instant supply contract”).
On May 3, 2016, the Plaintiff received a full payment receipt from the Defendant.
The Defendant, as a building owner on December 16, 2015, obtained a building permit for the hotel of this case on or around February 2016, and commenced construction work on or around February 2016, but delayed construction due to disputes with G and financial difficulties. On July 10, 2017, the construction was suspended upon completion of supervision, but the approval for the use of the hotel of this case was obtained on July 3, 2018.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff, as the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with the defendant for the guest room of this case and paid in full, the defendant is obligated to complete the registration of ownership transfer concerning the above guest room. Since the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership was impossible due to delay in construction, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the total amount of the sale price.
In this regard, the defendant obtained a completion permit after completion of the hotel of this case, but did not enter into a supply contract for the guest room of this case with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff paid the sale price.