logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.24 2017가단35814
계약금 및 중도금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, who operates the “D Private Co., Ltd” under the underground of the building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “D Co., Ltd.”) as follows (hereinafter “instant contract”).

1) Deposit: 220 million won (including premium of KRW 130 million) and 6 million monthly rent of KRW 20 million: Contract deposit shall be substituted by the payment of KRW 15 million at the time of the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 35 million until November 20, 2016, and the funds shall be substituted by service deposit.

3) Duration: (1) Terms and conditions of a special agreement between November 20, 2021 and April 20, 2021 include (4) KRW 90 million per building owner’s deposit, KRW 60 million per month of rent, KRW 130 million per premium, ② KRW 220 million per unit deposit, ② KRW 65 million per unit service deposit.

(3) A building owner and a new five-year lease shall be prepared.

(4) The bathing membership shall settle the balance when they become customers.

(5) The current items collected in the current state shall be accepted as they are.

The electricity, water, and public charges are brought to the defendant when the remainder is 6.

5 Subject matter delivery time: when new services have been made;

B. On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff sent content-certified mail to the Defendant “The Defendant, without being delegated by the building owner, concluded the instant contract with the Plaintiff and acquired KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff returned the above KRW 100 million by March 22, 2017.”

[Ground for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 [Defendant's assertion that Gap evidence No. 1 (a sales contract) was forged, but no evidence to acknowledge it exists], and there is no dispute

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 15 million in down payment and intermediate payment of KRW 15 million to the Defendant. At the time of the instant contract, the Defendant had been in arrears for eight months as to the building owner, and even if the building owner was notified of the termination of the lease due to the delinquency in rent, it was concealed.

arrow