logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2021.01.13 2020나2017182
매매대금
Text

The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.

A. The defendant pays 45,120,000 won to the plaintiff. B. The plaintiff

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The 2nd page of the first instance court ruling "not to interfere with the activation of the 12th sentence inside the 2nd page of the judgment," shall be made " not to interfere with the activation."

The following shall be added to the last page of the third page of the first instance judgment:

A contract confirmation: Any content not mentioned in two or more copies of this contract and any content made orally shall be null and void, that the principal is fully aware of the terms and conditions of this contract, such as the following matters:

On the third page of the judgment of the first instance court in the special agreement, the "Support" shall be taken into consideration as "by the substitute" under the 11th sentence below the special agreement.

Under Article 3 of the Judgment of the first instance court, “B” shall be based on the recognition of “B” and “B” each of the following 8 testimony of the witness P” with “part of the witness P”.

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay any balance (445,120,000 won) arising from the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The Plaintiff also claims the payment of delayed damages for the remainder.

In addition, prior to the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s ownership, the Defendant’s payment of the remainder should be made first, and even if the Plaintiff’s obligation to register transfer of ownership and the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder are simultaneously performed, it is reasonable to conclude that the Defendant’s simultaneous performance relationship terminates without providing the Plaintiff’s performance by clarifying the Plaintiff’s intent to refuse to pay the remainder. However, barring any special circumstance, the obligation of the buyer of real estate and the obligation to register transfer of real estate seller’s ownership are simultaneously performed, and under the instant sales contract.

arrow