(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나2886

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.27 2017나2886

아파트입주권매매대금반환

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Whether a subsequent appeal is lawful;

A. According to the records, the court of first instance shall serve a copy of the complaint against the defendant, notice of the date for pleading, etc. by public notice, and shall proceed with pleadings. On January 26, 2011, the court rendered a judgment that fully accepts the plaintiff's claim, and the original copy of the judgment was also served to the defendant by public notice, and the defendant shall have become aware of the judgment of the first instance on March 28, 201, after perusal of the records of this case on March 28, 2017, and filed an appeal for subsequent completion on March 30, 2017.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant was unable to observe the appeal period because he was unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence, and there is no reason to view the intention of the peremptory period as the defendant's responsibility.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is a legitimate appeal that satisfies the requirements for the subsequent completion of the litigation.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) on October 8, 2003, the plaintiff purchased apartment units to be won 33,400,000 won from the defendant, and paid 33,400,000 won to the defendant. However, at the time, the defendant had already held two different houses and the apartment winning was impossible. However, even though the apartment winning is impossible, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff and sold the subscription savings account to the plaintiff, so the defendant is obligated to return 3,40,000 won to the plaintiff as compensation for damages or unjust enrichment.

3) In addition, when the Plaintiff demanded the cancellation of the sales contract to the Defendant on the grounds as above, the Defendant agreed to cancel the sales contract of this case and return the Plaintiff the amount calculated by adding the above 20% interest to the above 33,400,000 won to the end of May, 2004. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest at the rate of 33,40,000 won per annum and the interest rate of 20% per annum. (B) In fact, the Plaintiff is entitled to pay to the Plaintiff at the rate of 33,40,000 won per annum.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.01.23 2014가단12224

-수원지방법원 2017.06.01 2017고단1476

-서울북부지방법원 2019.09.04 2019고단2553

-대전지방법원 2019.10.23 2019고단1991

-의정부지방법원 2018.09.06 2017나7324