(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.03.17 2016가단111826

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) 대구지방법원 2017.03.17 2016가단111826

계약금반환 등

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 28, 2016 to March 17, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant’s agent C (director of D Licensed Real Estate Agent) and the Defendant’s agent C (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with respect to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 75 million with respect to the E main building No. 303, Dong 1, Dong 303 (hereinafter “the entire building”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”); and the lease agreement between May 20, 2016 and May 19, 2018 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff immediately remitted the down payment of KRW 20 million out of the said lease deposit to an account under the name of the Defendant after entering into a contract, and the amount of KRW 5 million shall be paid on May 20, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 50 million shall be paid by June 8, 2016 due to a special agreement with the Defendant’s agent.

C. Meanwhile, regarding the location of the entire building of the instant case by the date of conclusion of the instant contract, the entire building of the instant case was provided as joint collateral on May 18, 2016, and the said land was additionally set forth as the maximum debt amount of KRW 195 million on the entire building of the instant land and the instant building on May 18, 2016, following the conclusion of the instant contract.

(b) The right to collateral security of KRW 195 million with the maximum amount of claims is d. (hereinafter “instant additional right to collateral security”).

On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant’s wife and C to return the down payment on the ground of the instant additional collateral security, etc., and expressed that the Plaintiff did not intend to maintain the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to Article 9 of the instant contract, the Plaintiff asserted the portion claiming the return of the down payment. However, according to the said contract, “the contract is a contract under the present condition,” the Defendant and the Defendant’s agent set up the instant additional collateral security on the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.02.09 2016가단238994

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.12 2017가단5742

-의정부지방법원 2014.06.02 2013고단4167

-수원지방법원 2014.11.07 2013가합5919

-대구지방법원 2015.12.17 2015나12350