(영문) 울산지방법원 2018.04.12 2017나23646

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) 울산지방법원 2018.04.12 2017나23646

소유권이전등록

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s husband C, who represented the Defendant on the ground of the instant real estate, to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 50 million (the contract amounting to KRW 45 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder KRW 5 million on March 10, 2015) (hereinafter “instant contract”).

B. On February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a down payment of KRW 45 million to the Defendant according to the instant sales contract.

C. On February 7, 2017, the Plaintiff deposited the remainder of KRW 50 million with the Defendant as the principal deposit account under the Ulsan District Court No. 336, U.S. District Court Decision 2017, supra.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to take the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant real estate on February 6, 2015, at the same time receiving KRW 55 million from the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff seeks, as sought by the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant sales contract.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s defense of rescission of the contract of this case is the defense that the contract of this case was lawfully rescinded by the Defendant’s declaration of intent of rescission on the ground of the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the remainder. In a bilateral contract with simultaneous performance, the person who seeks to rescind the contract on the ground of the other party’s non-performance shall provide for the other party’s performance of his/her obligation. If the other party’s act is necessary in performing his/her obligation, he/she shall complete the preparation to perform at any time, notify the other party of the fact, and notify the other party of the fact, so that the other party may result in delay of performance, and it shall not be deemed that there is a preparation attitude for performance (see Supreme Court Decision 209

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.08.24 2017가단51718

-대구고등법원 2018.09.20 2017나25889

-제주지방법원 2018.05.16 2017나11438

-창원지방법원 2017.12.14 2017나53399

-울산지방법원 2015.12.23 2015가단18830