logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.01 2015가단126227
약정금
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 January 13, 2011, between B and B, the Plaintiff concluded a remodeling construction contract by setting the construction cost of KRW 450 million with respect to the building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. In the course of the Plaintiff’s progress, an auction of the instant building was conducted, and the Plaintiff filed a lien report with the said auction court on the basis of its own construction cost incurred in relation to the instant building, and subsequently filed a lawsuit against B by this court 2012Gahap6480, Apr. 30, 2013, the conciliation was concluded that “B shall pay KRW 267,660,000 to the Plaintiff by May 31, 2013.”

C. The Defendant was awarded a successful bid of the instant building on September 4, 2013.

On November 10, 2014, the Defendant concluded a sales contract for the instant building with Espast Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Espast”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 18, 2014 regarding the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 6-1 and 6-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. 1) On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant delegated the Defendant’s right of representation to the Defendant to resolve the lien, and that the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 112,00,000 in return for the above lien between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff released possession based on the above lien, and that the Defendant sought the payment of the said amount. 2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the said agreement was made on behalf of the Defendant, and that the said agreement was made on behalf of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was not a party to the above agreement.

3 Health Units, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 8, and witness D's testimony and the above agreement are in Espaw.

arrow