logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나65085
약정금 등
Text

The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On May 10, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded each sales contract with E with respect to D Apartment F (214,100,000 won in lots), G (248,80,000 won in lots), H (225,700,000 won in lots), I (254,000 won in lots), Jho (254,000 won in lots), and Jho (254,000,000 won in lots) as down payment to the above company.

[Grounds] Around April 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendants on the following: (a) the Plaintiff did not dispute; (b) written evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branches); and (c) the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendants: (a) stating that “The Plaintiff received a down payment by selling it in lots with a premium attached to the apartment in advance, and then, (b) the Plaintiff shall return the investment principal to the Plaintiff and pay a profit of KRW 8,00,000 (hereinafter “instant investment agreement”).

Accordingly, the plaintiff paid the pre-sale price for the above five units, and thereafter, the plaintiff in the first instance court excluded the No. H from the object of calculating the profit, but it is deemed that the court in the first instance included H in the No. 1.

Since the sale of shares was completed, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 32,00,000 (=8,000,000 x 4 rooms).

In light of the following circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants are obliged to pay the profits in light of the aforementioned facts: (a) the descriptions of Gap's evidence 2, 3, 6, and 7; and (b) the witness of the first instance court K, and L's testimony and the entire purport of pleadings:

On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

On January 31, 2018, the Plaintiff lost the status of the investor in the above five rooms by receiving the return of the above KRW 100,000,000 through Defendant C.

F No. 103, Feb. 10, 2018

3. Transfer of ownership to M. 16. G and trade in March 15, 2018.

arrow