(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가합6728

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) 창원지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가합6728

소유권이전등기

Text

1. The Defendant’s sales of each of the real estate stated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff is based on September 27, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The execution of an agreement on the sale and purchase of each real estate of this case and the conclusion of a pre-sale agreement is 1) each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

(1) From August 2013, the sales contract was concluded between the original Defendant and the Plaintiff. Since August 2013, the Plaintiff did not directly contact with the Defendant, and C and D, a real estate broker, consulted with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff on ten or more occasions on behalf of the Plaintiff. On September 27, 201, the seller and the buyer paid the purchase and sale of the said real estate KRW 10 million as the pre-contract deposit ( September 27, 2013), and the seller shall receive the said contract regularly. 2. On October 11, 2013, this is to be determined as penalty, and the other matters are governed by the Civil Act and the precedents. 4. The date of delivery of real estate for the purpose of sale is KRW 1 billion as a result of the agreement, but as a result of the agreement, the Plaintiff prepared the so-called “sale contract” with the Defendant as KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000.

The following are the special terms and conditions stipulated in the contract. The delivery date of real estate was set on October 27, 2013, which was after October 11, 2013, taking into account the fact that the defendant demanded the necessary period to the director from before that date.

In this regard, the Plaintiff had a difference in opinion between the original Defendant as to the burden of interest on a loan accrued between the payment date and the delivery date due to the relationship in which the Plaintiff received a loan from Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Bank”), and intended to pay the balance of the purchase price. However, the Plaintiff ultimately agreed to bear

(hereinafter referred to as "the above reservation". The debtor is the defendant for each real estate of this case 3.

참조조문

-민법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.02.12 2013가합7318

-창원지방법원 2017.02.07 2016가단105803

-부산지방법원 2017.09.19 2016가단316460

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.02.18 2014가합3463

-광주지방법원목포지원 2015.07.09 2014가합12725