(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.14 2015가단23207

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.14 2015가단23207

계약금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff purchased KRW 335,000,000 from the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 116.4 square meters in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu and 116.4 square meters in its ground and buildings, and KRW 227.25 square meters in its ground. The Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 15,000,000 on the date of the contract, the remainder 340,000,000 on June 25, 2015, and paid the down payment.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that, at the time of the instant sales contract, the seller shall reimburse the remainder, and the buyer may waive the down payment and cancel the contract.

(Article 5). (c)

The instant sales contract was not implemented as agreed upon.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined that the Defendant unilaterally reversed the instant sales contract on June 23, 2015, which was two days before the remainder payment date, and that the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 30,000,000,000, equivalent to the amount of the down payment and the amount of the down payment.

In regard to this, the defendant requested the extension of the remaining payment date and notified the plaintiff that the plaintiff had no intention to purchase it finally. The contract of this case was not performed as the plaintiff's refusal of performance, and the defendant did not cancel the contract and did not have a duty to return the down payment and compensate for damages.

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1, and Eul evidence No. 5-2, the defendant proposed to cancel the examination contract to return the down payment to the plaintiff on or around June 23, 2015. However, in full view of the respective statements and arguments in evidence No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 1, and No. 5-2, and the whole purport of the arguments, the plaintiff demanded that the loan be extended to three weeks after the remainder payment date first to the defendant during June 2015.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단5378

-부산지방법원 2020.05.06 2019가단341047

-대구지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단111734

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.10.15 2013가단33649

-부산지방법원 2017. 10. 27. 선고 2016가단343004 판결