logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.07 2018나23956
부당이득금반환
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Defendants are married to share the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Apartment 501 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) (the Defendant 1/2 shares, respectively).

On October 8, 2017, the Plaintiff visited and examined the apartment of this case introduced through a licensed real estate agent, and then transferred KRW 10 million to Defendant B’s bank account (hereinafter “the amount of remittance of this case”) without preparing a written contract without hearing an explanation of KRW 940 million.

On October 14, 2017, the Plaintiff consulted with the Defendants on the detailed conditions of a sales contract through a licensed real estate agent, but failed to prepare a contract due to differences in the remaining payment timing, etc. during the period of the consultation with the Defendants at the Licensed Real Estate Agent Office.

On October 23, 2017, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return the instant remittance amount by not later than October 27, 2017, by content-certified mail, but the Defendants refused this.

[Reasons for Recognition] Fact-finding, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion as to whether a sales contract was established with the purport of the whole pleadings, that the plaintiff paid the remittance amount of this case to the defendants under the terms of "provisional contract deposit" for the purchase of apartment of this case, but the sales contract was not concluded later, and therefore, the defendants asserts that there is no legal ground for holding the remittance

As to this, although the Defendants did not prepare a sales contract in a regular manner, there was an agreement on the subject of sale (the apartment of this case) and the sale price (940 million won), and there was also a method and standard to ex post specify the time of transfer of ownership and the payment of the purchase price. Thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the contract may not be arbitrarily rescinded unless he waives the transfer amount.

Judgment

In order to establish a contract, it is required that the parties agree with each other.

arrow