(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2016가단5394

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) 광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2016가단5394

매매대금

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 27, 2006, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant and his wife B (hereinafter “Defendant Husband and wife”) the third floor 321 of the Gwangju Mine-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) at KRW 355,000,000 for the purchase price.

B. The Defendant couple paid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 305,00,000 with the purchase price of the instant building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 30, 2006 with respect to the said building on October 27, 2006.

C. On the other hand, on October 31, 2006, the Defendant couple leased the instant building to the Plaintiff as “50,000,000 won for rental deposit, 2,290,000 won for rent monthly, and 2 years from the date of the designation of the rental period.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including all types of numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the sale price of the building of this case was KRW 370,00,000, and only KRW 337,576,00 among them was received from the Defendant, and that the remainder was not paid KRW 32,424,00,00, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remainder and damages for delay.

In light of the above, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant couple agreed to sell the building of this case at KRW 370,000,000. Rather, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff and the Defendant couple agreed to sell the building of this case at KRW 50,000 after determining the sale price of the building of this case at KRW 355,00,000, the Plaintiff and the Defendant couple agreed to sell the building of this case at KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff by leasing or transferring the building of this case to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff and the Defendant couple agreed to sell the building of this case at KRW 50,000 from

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the sales price of the instant building is without merit, without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.26 2015가단5085223

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.09 2015가단5085285

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.27 2015가단39669

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.13 2016나71388

-창원지방법원 2019.06.11 2018가단6924