logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.14 2016가단5299210
계약금반환청구의 소
Text

1. Each of the plaintiff's claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2008, Bo Chang Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seo Chang Development”) concluded a credit transaction agreement of KRW 6 billion with the credit limit amount set out on May 29, 2009, the credit limit amount of KRW 1.5 billion for a new additional loan on June 23, 2009, * * 1.5 billion, respectively, on January 28, 2010, with the credit limit amount of KRW 1.0 billion.

B. From May 2008, the New Development entered into each of the following sales contracts with the Defendants with respect to the real estate in Scheon Edong (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid each of the said down payment KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendants.

A real estate owner’s down payment (cost) 53 square meters in F. 453 square meters in Sacheon-si, Gyeongcheon-gu, Gyeongcheon-do, and above-ground housing Defendant A 15,000,000 on April 12, 1984, establishing a maximum debt amount of KRW 9,000,000 on June 22, 1989, establishing a right to collateral security of KRW 18,000,000 on March 25, 1994, establishing a right to collateral security of KRW 36,00,000 on March 25, 1994, establishing a right to collateral security of KRW 31,86 square meters in H. 80,00,000, KRW 340,000 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 350,000 on February 28, 1975, and KRW 160,010 on the land and Defendant C2010.

C. However, the New Development failed to repay loans under each of the above credit transaction agreements, and as of December 18, 2014, the loan principal was not repaid KRW 8,304,754,626.

On the other hand, Es Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2012 (Seoul Central District Court 2012Hahap9) and appointed the plaintiff as bankruptcy trustee.

[Ground for Recognition] : Each entry of facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 9 (including each number)

2. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion and creative development paid each down payment to the Defendants, the Defendants’ ownership of the instant real estate.

arrow