(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2014.09.04 2014가합24

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) 청주지방법원충주지원 2014.09.04 2014가합24

정산금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration for transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was made on December 27, 2006 on the grounds of sale by voluntary auction as of December 26, 2006, and ② the registration for transfer of ownership in C was made on the grounds of sale as of November 29, 2010 on December 27, 2010.

B. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on May 9, 2008, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was made on the grounds of the sale by compulsory auction as of May 9, 2008 on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s compulsory auction as of May 9, 2008, and ② the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was made on the grounds of the sale as of May 1, 2009 on June 2, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a paper number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff agreed to exchange the real estate of this case 12 with the Defendant to pay the registration fee, taxes, loans, interest, and expenses for the repair of stables on behalf of the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request at the time the Defendant was awarded a successful bid for the instant real estate No. 1.

(hereinafter “instant exchange contract.” The Plaintiff transferred the ownership of the instant 2 real estate to the Defendant pursuant to the instant exchange contract, but the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of the instant 1 real estate to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff directly sold the instant 1 real estate to C at KRW 580 million, and C did not pay the remainder of KRW 250 million after paying only KRW 330 million out of the purchase price.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for damages arising from the non-performance of the exchange contract of this case.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2015.06.10 2014나12929

-청주지방법원충주지원 2016.08.17 2016가단1611

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.08.22 2017가단3921

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.05 2014가합205603

-부산지방법원 2020.11.26 2019나59622