logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.01.27 2014나26738
매매대금반환 등
Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall enter the attached list from the plaintiff in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a project implementer who sells and supplies the Suwon-si Distribution Center C (hereinafter “instant distribution center”).

B. On January 6, 2009, the Defendant: (a) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of 101 square meters of the first floor of the instant distribution center (42.07 square meters of exclusive use area, 62.81 square meters of total sale area; hereinafter “instant commercial building”); and (b) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of 882,285,112 square meters (hereinafter “first sale contract”); and (c) entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff for the sale of 35.20 square meters of total area of 7,488.24 square meters among the total area of 3-4th and 7,488.24 square meters, including the Plaintiff, at the same time as the transfer of the ownership of the commercial building; and (d) received the down payment from the Plaintiff.

The indication of the object of sale of the first sale contract set forth in the first sale contract, the commercial building of this case is printed and marked next to it, and it is stated as the "convenition store".

C. On June 22, 2010, the Defendant again reduced the sales price of the first installment contract between the Plaintiff and changed the payment date of the third installment payment and the balance, but the remainder entered into a sales contract with the same content as the first installment contract (hereinafter “the second installment sale contract”) and entered into the first installment sale contract (hereinafter “the second installment sale contract”) into on January 6, 2009, stating the date of concluding the first installment sale contract (A2-2) as the same as the first installment sale contract, and treated the down payment and the first installment payment paid according to the first installment sale contract as the second installment sale contract.

Unlike the first contract for sale in lots, the second contract for sale in lots does not indicate the phrase "convenition point".

On the other hand, on June 11, 2010, the Defendant concluded a lease contract with Nonparty D on the instant commercial building, and D opened convenience stores in the instant commercial building.

E. The Plaintiff paid all balance on July 19, 2010 to the instant commercial building.

arrow