logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.08 2014나6641
계약금반환
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

A evidence Nos. 2 and 3-1 (the statement of performance of the return of contract deposit, the stamp image following the Defendant’s name is based on the Defendant’s seal, and the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established as a whole because there is no dispute between the parties. The Defendant defense to the effect that this document was forged by C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), and considering the whole purport of the pleadings in addition to each written evidence Nos. 3-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant on August 18, 2009 about KRW 62,00,000 from the Defendant on the part of the river site of Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu and seven parcels of land, Seoul, and paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant as the down payment, and the Defendant was unable to get off the river site, it is recognized that the Defendant agreed to return the down payment KRW 2,00,000 that he received to the Plaintiff on August 13, 2012.

The defendant, who received KRW 20 million from C in return for the management of the river site in arrears, shall thereafter return KRW 20 million to C, and it did not conclude a sales contract with the plaintiff and agreed to receive KRW 20 million from the plaintiff or return KRW 20 million from the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

As long as the establishment of a disposal document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the expression of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753, Jun. 11, 2002). In this case, there is no clear and acceptable counter-proof that the content of evidence A No. 3-1 can be reversed.

Therefore, the Defendant calculated 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 1, 2012 to October 2, 2013, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order from November 2, 2012 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order.

arrow