logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.24 2014가합519707
매매대금반환
Text

1. Defendant C shall pay 130,000,000 won to the Plaintiffs and 20% per annum from April 10, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with Defendant C to pay the purchase price of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), which is used for the gas station business, as KRW 1,950,00,000, and the down payment of KRW 30,000,000 on the date of the contract, shall be paid on the date of the contract, and the Plaintiffs shall succeed to the loan of KRW 1,50,000,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 420,000 shall be paid on January 20, 2014, the Plaintiffs agreed to compensate for the amount equivalent to the down payment as compensation for damages in the event of cancellation of one’s non-performance of the contract. In addition, the remainder of KRW 1,00,000,000 shall be deducted as follows.

2. The maximum claim amount of KRW 2,163,00,000 is the actual debt amount of KRW 1,50,000,000 in total; and KRW 4,00 in total, part of the remainder of KRW 1,50,000 in total shall be replaced by the sales right down payment. 5. A special agreement was made on a deposit for rental deposit of KRW 100,000 in total, and monthly rent of KRW 7,50,00 in total (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs paid 30,000,000 won to Defendant C on December 30, 2013, and on January 20, 2014, the plaintiffs paid 70,000,000 won remaining remaining remaining balance that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay in cash, excluding the loans to which the plaintiffs succeed, the lease deposit, and the sales right deposit.

However, Defendant C did not succeed to the obligation of collateral security on the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and did not deliver a lease contract and a letter of permission to occupy and use a gas station business. Defendant D, not Defendant C, claimed as the seller of the instant real estate.

C. The Plaintiffs, upon the delivery of the instant complaint, expressed their intent to rescind the instant sales contract on the grounds of Defendant C’s nonperformance of the said contract, and this reached Defendant C on April 9, 2014.

(b) the basis for recognition;

arrow