(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.10.23 2018가단505362

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) 광주지방법원 2018.10.23 2018가단505362

매매대금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,500,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from June 2, 2015 to February 13, 2018.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) carried out the business of newly constructing and selling an officetel of 13 floors underground and 13 floors above the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju and four lots of land (hereinafter “instant project site”).

B. The Defendant purchased the right to sell various partitioned buildings, including the F heading of the said officetel (hereinafter “the instant officetel”), at the discounted price from C.

C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for resale of the instant officetel sales right to KRW 55 million.

(hereinafter “instant resale contract”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant by June 1, 2015, and the Defendant completed a change in the name of the purchaser to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, C entered into a trust agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “trustee Company”) on the instant officetel while carrying out the said business, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the trustee company on March 23, 2012 on the instant business site due to trust.

E. According to the legal relationship of the above trust contract, in order for a buyer to complete the registration of ownership transfer after having sold officetels, he/she should conclude a sales contract with the trustee company and pay the sales price to the trustee company account.

As the status of a legitimate buyer was not recognized from the trustee company, the Plaintiff was unable to be transferred the registration of ownership of the instant officetel.

(B) On October 28, 2017, the instant officetel transferred its ownership to a third party who was recognized as a buyer by the trustee company. Meanwhile, on October 28, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 7,500,000 from the broker of the instant resale contract to compensate for the damages for the failure to acquire the instant officetel from the broker of the instant resale contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 (including paper numbers), the purpose of the entire pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Law of the resale contract of this case

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2018.05.15 2017가단524472

-광주지방법원 2018.01.23 2016가단514669

-광주지방법원 2018.05.15 2017가단525826

-광주지방법원 2017.11.24 2017고단3425

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가합548204