logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.27 2016나2027472
분양대금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. At the first instance trial, the Plaintiff claimed payment of the remainder of the sales price under the instant sales contract (hereinafter referred to as the “part 1 (a)), the balance of the options construction price (hereinafter referred to as the “part 1 (b)”) and the interest paid by the Plaintiff pursuant to the part 1 (c) of the intermediate payment loan (hereinafter referred to as the “part 1”), 15.96% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, 6% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the date of full payment, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The court of the first instance accepted all claims for damages for delay against the balance of the sale price, the balance of the options construction price, and the interest on the payment of the intermediate payment (i.e., (a) (c) and the interest on the payment of the intermediate payment. On the other hand, with respect to claims for damages for delay from the balance of the sale price and the balance of the options construction price to the 30th day following the due date, the court dismissed the portion exceeding the agreed interest rate, 10.96% per annum from January 1, 2013 to the 30th day after the due date, 13.96% per annum from the agreed interest rate per annum from the next day to the 90th day of the due date, 13.96% per annum from the agreed interest rate per annum from the next day to the 180th day of the due date, and 15.96% per annum interest rate per annum from the next day to the due date.

In regard to this, the Defendant appealed to the effect that the damages for delay pursuant to the agreed interest rate in the instant contract for sale in lots fall under the liquidated damages, and that the damages for delay ordered payment in the first instance judgment should be reduced within the same amount as that stated in the purport of appeal. However, the principal portion was partially paid.

arrow