logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.07.16 2014가합14796
부동산매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff and Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter referred to as “C”) have each one-half share of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (such as tourist hotel and its site; hereinafter “instant real estate”) at a voluntary auction procedure, paid in full the successful bid price on June 5, 2013, and completed each registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

On July 17, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract (hereinafter “the first sales contract”) stating that the Plaintiff sells 1/10 shares out of the instant real estate to the Defendant in KRW 315,00,000.

On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the above shares on the following day.

On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a sales contract (hereinafter “the second sales contract”) stating that the Plaintiff sells 1/10 of the instant real property to the Defendant in KRW 300,000,000.

[Grounds] The Plaintiff and the Defendant seek the purchase price of KRW 315,00,000, total of KRW 300,000,000 in accordance with the purchase and sale contract of February 11, 2014, and damages for delay in payment for the purchase price of KRW 615,00,00,00 in accordance with the purchase and sale contract of July 17, 2013. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant seek for the purchase price of KRW 615,00,000,00 in total, and damages for delay in payment of the purchase price of KRW 615,00,00 in accordance with the above sales contract of February 11,

However, in light of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking into account each of the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the overall purport of arguments and arguments, since the first and second sales contracts are deemed to have been formally made between the original defendant who had been in a partnership business relationship in order to transfer part of the share of the instant real estate, which is a business property of the instant real estate, and thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge that a sales contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no evidence to

On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff, C, Defendant, and Nonparty D agreed to operate a business leasing the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff and C.

arrow