beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked, and
Reasons
1. The following facts of the recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the statements in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and 7 (including the numbers when they are not specially indicated; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony and the whole purport of pleadings by the witness C of the first instance trial, and there is no counter-proof.
The land of this case was originally owned by D. D (Death on November 26, 1976) and his wife (Death on May 2, 200) were divided into the shares of 9/24, 4/24, 4/24, 7/24, 7/24, and 7/24.
The defendant has been actually managing the land of this case as G's children.
B. On May 11, 2013, C entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant land under the following conditions (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the date of the contract, C paid the Defendant the sum of KRW 30,000,000,000, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000,000 on May 24, 2013.
Article 2 In the sale of real estate, the buyer pays the purchase price of KRW 170,00,000 as follows at the time of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000,000 at the time of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 50,000 shall be paid on May 24, 2013; and the remainder of KRW 90,000,000 shall be paid on June 20, 2013 by the seller under Article 5, who is entitled to change the name, at the time of receiving any balance:
Section 8. In the event that the seller has breached this contract, he shall compensate the buyer twice the down payment, and if the buyer has breached it, the down payment shall be null and void, and no claim for return shall be made.
C. C, on June 20, 2013, demanded the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not implement the procedure.
C On July 18, 2013, preparing KRW 90,000,000 by cashier’s checks for the payment of remainder, and again filing a claim for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land to the Defendant, but the Defendant still remains.