logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.05.12 2015가합10642
청구이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 25, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased the instant real estate at KRW 1.650 square meters and its ground buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”) in Jeju-si, in the purchase price of KRW 1.60 million (excluding value-added tax on the building); and (b) drafted the instant authentic deed (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”).

B. Of the notarial deeds of this case, the parts relating to this case are as follows.

Article 1 (Purpose) The Defendant lent KRW 1.3 billion to the Plaintiff on April 25, 2013, and the Plaintiff borrowed this.

Article 2 (Period and Method of Performance) 220 million won on April 30, 2014; KRW 120 million on October 30, 2014; KRW 120 million on April 30, 2015; KRW 140 million on October 30, 2015; KRW 140 million on October 30, 2015; KRW 140 million on April 30, 2016; KRW 140 million on April 30, 2016; KRW 140 million on October 30, 2016; KRW 140 million on April 30, 2016; KRW 140 million on April 30, 201; and KRW 140 million on April 30, 2017; and KRW 100 million on each installment.

Article 6 (Loss of Maturity) If the Plaintiff falls under any of the following subparagraphs, the Plaintiff shall, as a matter of course, lose the benefit of time due to the obligation for the borrowed money, and immediately repay all of the remainder of the obligation, even if no other notification or peremptory notice is

3. When the debtor delays the payment of the installment repayment at any time (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. In the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 1.6 billion and the value added to a building KRW 3885 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 8.885 million on October 30, 2018. In lieu of paying the down payment, the Plaintiff paid the money borrowed from a financial institution as collateral in lieu of paying the down payment, and the instant notarial deed was prepared to guarantee the obligation to pay the down payment, and the Plaintiff did not borrow KRW 1.3 billion to the Defendant, and thus, the remaining payment date of the down payment was not due on October 30, 2018.

arrow