logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.12.13 2019가합108443
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) paid KRW 637,70,000 to Plaintiff A Co., Ltd.; and (b) KRW 177,30,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) as to each of the said money.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 15, 2015, D and E agreed to sell all F commercial buildings in the amount of KRW 1,857,00,000 (the contract amount of KRW 700 million, intermediate payment of KRW 300,000,000, the balance of KRW 857,000,000, and value-added tax separate) from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Company G succeeded to the purchaser’s status under the instant sales contract from March 15, 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “D, etc.” in combination with D and D Co., Ltd.). D, etc. paid a sum of KRW 900 million to the Defendant as part of the down payment and intermediate payment.

B. On November 28, 2018, the Defendant cancelled the instant sales contract with D, etc., and agreed to pay KRW 900,000,000,000 in total, and KRW 1.80,000,000,000, out of the said money, to D, etc. within 30 days, and to pay KRW 637,70,000,000 to Plaintiff A corporation, and KRW 177,30,000,000 to Plaintiff B for delay in the event payment is not completed within the payment period.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff Company A, as agreed on November 28, 2018, KRW 637,700,00, KRW 1777,000, and KRW 177,30,000 to the Plaintiff B, and each of the said payments at the rate of 8% per annum based on the agreed delay damages rate from December 29, 2018 to July 24, 2019, which is the day following the agreed payment date after the lapse of 30 days from November 28, 2018, which is the day of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, until July 24, 2019, and the day of full payment from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow