(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.01.11 2018나2022 (1)

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) 창원지방법원 2019.01.11 2018나2022 (1)

계약금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) as KRW 580 million in total (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid 60 million as down payment to the Defendant on the date of the contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. The Plaintiffs agreed with the Defendant to cancel the instant sales contract, and received refund from the Defendant of KRW 50 million out of the amount of KRW 60 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to return the unpaid KRW 5 million out of the sales contract amount to be returned as the contract of this case was terminated by agreement.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that, at the time of the termination of the agreement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, there was an agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant to return KRW 5 million equivalent to the expenses of licensed real estate agents paid by the Defendant, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that there was such agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 23, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to the day of full payment, as requested by the plaintiffs.

3. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is justified.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.07.09 2014나51239

-전주지방법원 2016.10.26 2016가단19543

-광주지방법원 해남지원 2018.08.07 2017가단21555

-광주지방법원목포지원 2014.05.02 2013가단4386

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.18 2014가합1024