206Gahap721 (the registration of transfer of ownership)

206Gahap738 (Counterclaim) Registration of transfer of ownership

7***********************

Gangnam-gu* Dong**:* apartment** Dong**

Attorney Kim*

***Malul

Gangwon* military music**** Ri***

Representative**

Attorney Song-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

October 5, 2007

November 2, 2007

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 250,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously performed each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet on March 9, 2005 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. On March 9, 2005, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 250,00,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) at the same time upon receipt of each procedure for ownership transfer registration on each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

3. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s remainder of the principal lawsuit and the remainder of the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be dismissed, respectively.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be four minutes in total, including the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim, and one of them shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the remainder by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), respectively.

5. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The principal lawsuit: The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as "the defendant") received KRW 150,00,000 from the plaintiff (the counterclaim defendant; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") and simultaneously implemented the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on March 9, 2005 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff on March 9, 2005.

Counterclaim: The judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay to the defendant 250,000,000 won with 5% per annum from May 10, 2006 to the service date of the copy of the counterclaim of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are no dispute between the parties. Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5-1 through 6 of Gap evidence Nos. 5-1, 5-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3-2 of Eul evidence and 1, 3-2 of Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 1, and 3-2 of this ****'s each testimony, witness Kim *, * Park*, Park*, Park * each part of the testimony (excluding the parts rejected in the latter) against this, and there is no counter-proof because some of the testimonys Nos. 3, 6 evidence and Kim** are believed, and there is no counter-proof.

A. Kim Jong-sung representing the plaintiff* on March 9, 2005* Gun* Eup* Licensed Real Estate Agent* in Ri 244*

In the office of the defendant, the separate list owned by the defendant between the representative Kim** at the time of the defendant.

The sales contract for each real estate (hereinafter referred to as "the forest of this case") was concluded, and each of them was made.

According to the sales contract (Evidence A 1), the sales amount is KRW 380,000,000,000, and the intermediate payment is KRW 300,000.

The intermediate payment of KRW 100,000 on March 21, 2005 and the remainder of KRW 250,000,000 on March 21, 2005

4. Each payment made on 19.19. (hereinafter referred to as "the instant sales contract").

c).

B. The plaintiff, on the above contract date, 30 million won for the contract deposit, and 100 million won for the part payment on March 19, 2005

Each payment was made.

2. The parties' assertion

As a cause for the Plaintiff’s principal claim, the sales price of the instant sales contract is KRW 280 million, and the entry in the instant sales contract is erroneous. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 130 million, which was paid as the down payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 280 million, and at the same time taking the Plaintiff into account the remainder of KRW 150 million, which was paid as the down payment and the intermediate payment of KRW 130 million, and to implement the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership in the instant forest. As for the Defendant’s assertion that the sales price of the instant sales contract is KRW 380,000,000,000, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Defendant the remainder of KRW 250,000,000,000,000 to the Defendant. As a counterclaim, the Defendant is claiming for payment of KRW 2

3. Determination

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

A. First, the sales price of the instant sales contract is KRW 380,000,000, not for KRW 280,000.

To the extent that a document of disposal is deemed to be genuine with respect to recognition, the court shall have jurisdiction over such document.

Unless there is any clear and acceptable reflective evidence that denies the content of the instrument;

The existence of declaration of intent and its content should be recognized in accordance with the language stated therein (Supreme Court).

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da23482 Decided June 28, 2002, Supreme Court Decision 2004Da67264, 67271 Decided May 13, 2005

(see, see, e.g., entry of Gap evidence 1 (sales contract) and witness this** testimony, etc.

The circumstances such as negative, that is, ① the above sales contract is a representative of the plaintiff, Kim ** in this place.

Licensed Real Estate Agent* by the broker, which is the most important factor in the sales contract.

The amount of the purchase price is erroneously stated, and the buyer also erroneously stated the amount of the purchase price.

The fact that the failure to discover is difficult to understand in light of the empirical rule, and ② the above sales contract.

The total amount of the purchase price in the form of a contract is written in addition to the Arabic figures, and the contract is entered into;

If the amount of gold, intermediate payment, and balance is stated as one and the purchase price has been mistakenly stated, then

It seems that there is little possibility that it can be overlooked without distinguishing it, and ③ even in the contract site.

The down payment and intermediate payment shall not be made even if the purchase price was not found to have been mistakenly stated.

In the process of urgency, the sales contract shall be reported again and the whole sales amount shall be re-checked.

It is common sense that the plaintiff would pay the down payment and the intermediate payment as scheduled.

There was no objection, and after the payment of intermediate payment, the contract is re-written only after March 21, 2005.

In light of the beginning of the demand for use, etc., the sales price of the instant sales contract is the same.

As stated in the contract, it shall be deemed to be KRW 380,000,000,000, and the statements in Gap 3 and 6 shall be deemed to be the same.

A witness and Kim*, Park Park, Park* partial testimony of the above sales contract alone is erroneous in the amount of sales proceeds under the above sales contract.

It is difficult to recognize as being written.

If so, the remaining purchase and sale amount is KRW 250 million (= KRW 380 million - KRW 30 million - KRW 100 million)

on the other hand, the seller's obligation to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration and the buyer's each in the real estate sales contract.

Since the obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase price is in simultaneous performance relationship, the defendant is 200 million won from the plaintiff.

simultaneously with the payment of KRW 50 million, each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the forest of this case

have an obligation to carry out.

B. Furthermore, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff losses for delay of KRW 250,000 for the remaining purchase price of KRW 250,000.

In the case of the simultaneous performance of the obligations of both parties in the bilateral contract, the two parties are in the relationship of performance.

Even if the fulfillment period of one of the obligations becomes due, until the other party provides performance of the obligation.

It is not liable for the delay of performance even if it has not been performed, and there is a simultaneous performance relationship.

Where one provides the performance of his own obligation under a bilateral contract, the other party's obligation is incurred in the performance of such obligation.

If an act is required, the preparation to be performed in reality shall be completed at any time.

If the other party is notified of his intention and notified to receive it, the other party may delay the performance.

(1) In this case, the court shall have jurisdiction over the payment of the total amount of the total amount of the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764, Jul. 10, 20

In the case, the delay of the defendant's duty to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale is caused by delay of such duty

In order to claim damages, at least the documents, etc. required for the registration of transfer of ownership shall be prepared.

Notice of this to the plaintiff and notice to receive the balance of purchase and sale at the same time as the payment thereof.

It is required that the defendant withdraw the above measures, on the sole basis of Gap evidence 4

The plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that it was, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the defendant's assertion, which is premised on the responsibility for delay of performance, is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, according to the principal lawsuit, the defendant received KRW 250 million from the plaintiff and at the same time, the plaintiff is obligated to perform each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the forest of this case based on the sales contract of this case. According to the counterclaim, the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 250 million to the defendant at the same time as he has received each of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the forest of this case from the defendant. Accordingly, the principal lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim claim of this case are accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the main lawsuit of this case and the counterclaim claim of this case are dismissed for the reasons that they are without merit.

Exemplary (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard of gambling

Hephoho Lake