(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.12.11 2015가단110062

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) 대구지방법원 2015.12.11 2015가단110062

매매대금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, the Defendant shall start on October 1, 2014, and the remainder 20,000.

Reasons

1. Assertion and judgment on the assertion

A. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff sold real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant at KRW 150 million, and agreed to receive KRW 110 million down payment on the date of the contract (the KRW 100 million was replaced by the Plaintiff’s acceptance of the collateral security obligation against the Hyang Agricultural Cooperatives), the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million was paid on September 30, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 20 million was paid at the same time as the delivery of documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer on March 15, 2015.

However, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant believed that he would pay the above intermediate payment and the balance, and that he completed the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate of this case on the date of the contract, but the defendant did not pay the above intermediate payment and the remainder payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the sales contract for No. 1 was forged, stating the fact that the contract was entered in the same sales contract as the plaintiff's assertion, and that the sales contract for No. 1 of No. 1 of No. 1 of 100 million won was correct,

B. In light of the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant, the witness, and the non-party D testified that the defendant would purchase the real estate of this case to 150 million won before entering into a sales contract for the real estate of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant shall be deemed to have sold the real estate of this case to 150 million won, and the sales contract for the certificate No. 1 of this case No. 1 of this case shall be deemed to have been executed with a purpose to promote tax convenience as a "multi-party contract" as referred to in the so-called "multi-party contract.

On the other hand, evidence that the sales contract of No. 1 is forged.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.02.09 2016가단520719

-인천지방법원 2015.07.28 2014가합54225

-수원지방법원 2017.09.08 2017구단6390

-대전지방법원 2015.05.14 2014노2086

-부산지방법원 2018.02.07 2017가합46499