(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.28 2015나2001589

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) 서울고등법원 2015.05.28 2015나2001589

분양대금반환

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment as to a creditor subrogation claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they are entitled to receive money from each of the instant conciliation against E, and as long as each of the instant sales contracts has been cancelled, the defendant representing E lost the status to hold the sales price paid by the plaintiffs, so E is in a position to cancel the portion of the sales price paid by the plaintiffs under the agency contract of this case and the security trust contract of this case and seek the return thereof to the defendant.

Since E is currently insolvent, the plaintiffs exercise their right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against the defendant in subrogation of E with each claim for return of the purchase price of E as preserved bond.

B. 1) The facts that the mediation of this case was completed between the plaintiffs' claims against E and E are as seen earlier. Accordingly, E is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the remainder of the amount obtained by deducting the amount repaid by E in subrogation of the plaintiffs from the corresponding amount under the mediation clause of this case. 2) The fact that E is insolvent is not a dispute between the parties.

3) The Plaintiffs asserted that E may seek a return of the amount equivalent to the sales price held by the Defendant on the ground of the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts where the sales contract becomes retroactively null and void due to the cancellation of each of the instant sales contracts against the Defendant, and therefore, whether there exists a subrogation claim should be viewed as to whether there exists a subrogation claim.

In addition to the basic facts cited earlier, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized.

E shall be August 28, 2003.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.12.06 2017가합71232

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2012.5.24.선고 2011가합4534 판결

-전주지방법원 2017.08.29 2017가단3699

-서울고등법원 2016.08.26 2014재나765

-서울고등법원 2016.07.12 2014재나741