logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.05.07 2014나7124
계약금반환 등
Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. On April 14, 2006, Damba Co., Ltd. entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase all of the instant land and all of the ground property in Ulsan-gu H 592.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 2.2 billion won (hereinafter “previous contract”), and paid the down payment 220 million won on the same day.

On April 21, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to succeed to the purchaser status of the previous contract from the above company, and entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to compensate for the amount of the down payment when the Defendant violated the contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

On the other hand, the instant land was sold by voluntary auction on July 5, 201, and its ownership was transferred to a third party.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, and Gap evidence 3-2

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the land of this case was transferred to another person, the contract of this case was impossible to perform due to the Defendant’s fault, the Plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case by serving the duplicate of the complaint.

The Defendant received down payment of KRW 226,200,000 according to the previous contract, and decided to substitute the down payment already received in the instant contract as the down payment of the instant contract. As such, the Defendant is liable to reimburse an amount of KRW 22,62 million paid under the instant contract.

3. The fact that the ownership of the instant land was transferred to another person after the contract of this case was examined is as seen earlier.

Furthermore, we examine whether the contract of this case has resulted in impossibility of performance due to the reasons attributable to the defendant.

In full view of the evidence No. 2-2 and evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant is a corporation with multi-crupt development.

arrow