logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 12. 14. 선고 71다2014 판결
[건물명도][집19(3)민,157]
Main Issues

A. The case holding that the contract was cancelled erroneously.

(b)The down payment shall be interpreted as cancellation money, and it shall not be reduced by deeming it as liquidated damages.

Summary of Judgment

(a) a third party, whose right is not infringed upon by the rescission of the contract, is a person meeting the requisite for setting up against the acquisition of the real right;

(b) Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the real estate buyer may not request the seller to transfer his ownership to the former.

[Reference Provisions]

Articles 544 and 565 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellant

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee

Defendant 1 and one other

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu High Court Decision 70Na146 delivered on July 13, 1971

Text

We reverse the original judgment.

The case shall be remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Reasons

The ground of appeal No. 1.2 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on June 3, 1968 as 2.1 million won for the building of this case owned by the plaintiff 1, and paid 60,000 won as contract deposit, and 50,000 won for the part payment to be paid by the defendant 1 through July 30 of the same year after receiving an order from the plaintiff 1 to 500,000 won for the part payment to be paid by August 30 of the same year. The plaintiff did not pay part payment due until September 10 of the same year, but it was still paid by the plaintiff 1,60,000 won for the part payment to the defendant 1,60,000 won as 9,000 won for the above reasons for non-performance of obligation by the plaintiff 1,60,000 won for the above 16,000 won for the part payment to the plaintiff 1,60,000 won for the part payment to the defendant 1,000 won.

This paper is reasonable, and therefore, it is difficult to escape from reversal of the original judgment without being required to explain the remaining argument of appeal.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, in accordance with Article 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)

arrow
심급 사건
-대구고등법원 1971.7.13.선고 70나146
본문참조조문
기타문서