(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2020.12.02 2020가단592

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 2020.12.02 2020가단592

매매대금반환 등

Text

1. As to KRW 76,00,000 among the Plaintiff and KRW 46,00,000, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from July 10, 201 to March 6, 2020.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 25, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the amount of KRW 300,000,000 from the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 300,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Of the above sales price, KRW 30,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 170,00,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000,000 for the remainder payment on November 25, 2005, and KRW 100,000,000 for each payment on December 24, 2005 (Article 2). The seller shall compensate for the amount of the down payment at the time of the said contract, and the buyer shall not claim the return of the down payment and shall not claim the return of the down payment.

(Article 7) The decision was made.

B. The Plaintiff paid 46,00,000 won (= KRW 30,000,000,000,000) to the Defendant on October 25, 2005 pursuant to the instant sales contract, including the total of KRW 16,00,000, which is a part of the intermediate payment on December 6, 2005 (= KRW 30,000,000,000).

C. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership in the name of E, which was based on the trade reservation, to Nonparty E on the instant real estate. On June 29, 2010, the Defendant cancelled the said provisional registration on the ground of the cancellation of the said trade reservation.

On June 30, 2010, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to Nonparty F and G (hereinafter “instant secondary sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of F and G on July 9, 2010.

The Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the instant sales contract by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the ground that the Defendant’s double selling or breach of trust was impossible to fulfill the obligation to transfer ownership under the instant sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Relevant legal principles are one real estate transaction.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단61608

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.04 2014가단116752

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.04.25 2017가합291

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2019.08.23 2019가단200555

-의정부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가합2451