(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단23340

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) 전주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단23340

매매대금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 10,909,09,090 for the Plaintiff (Appointeds), the Appointeds C, D, and E, and KRW 16,363,640 for the Appointeds F, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties share the real estate listed in the attached real estate list (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The share of the Plaintiff, Appointed C, D, and E is 2/11, respectively, and the share of the Selection F is 3/11.

B. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff and the designated parties concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the instant real estate at KRW 418 million, but the down payment of KRW 48 million on the contractual day, the intermediate payment of KRW 350 million on March 18, 2014, and the remainder payment of KRW 20 million on March 31, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff and the designated parties completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s future with respect to the instant real estate.

On the other hand, on March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff and the designated parties received KRW 358 million from the Defendant as the sales amount.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff and the designated parties for the remaining amount of the instant sales contract.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) If the party to the instant sales contract, which was the primary argument, is G, not the Defendant, but G. (2) If the party to the instant sales contract, was the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a title trust agreement with G and received the ownership of the instant real estate. Since the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the title trust contract was concluded, it cannot be claimed to the Defendant for the fulfillment

C. Determination 1 constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract, who is the party to the contract of this case.

The interpretation of declaration of intention shall be made by the parties concerned.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2016.08.18 2015나5180

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가합102621

-부산지방법원 2016.07.01 2015가단82609

-청주지방법원 2015.09.17 2014가합3303

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가합100476