logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.08.14 2013가합88275
손해배상(기)
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 22, 2009, the sales contract was concluded with regard to D and five parcels owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with regard to the seller, the buyer, and two others, the sales price of KRW 3 billion (the contract amount of KRW 450 million and the balance of KRW 2.5 million) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. At the time of entering into the instant sales contract, the Defendant received the down payment of KRW 450 million, and issued receipts (in subparagraph 3) under the names of the Plaintiffs and E.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The key point of the parties’ assertion argues that the Defendant’s arbitrary sale of the instant real estate to Jinsungtech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ginsung”) without the rescission of the instant sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in Jinsung. Accordingly, the instant sales contract was in an impossible condition, and the Plaintiffs and E expressed their intent to cancel the instant sales contract on May 1, 2014 to the Defendant on the ground that performance is impossible. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Defendant KRW 900,000,000,000, as compensation for damages.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the parties to the instant sales contract are F rather than the Plaintiffs, and that even if the Plaintiffs were the parties to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs delegated F with the authority relating to the instant sales contract, including the resale of the instant real estate, and accordingly, F resell sold the instant real estate to Jisung, and thus, the instant sales contract was not in an impossible state due to the Defendant’s fault.

B. The party to the instant sales contract generally is the party to the contract, and the intent of the party involved in the contract is interpreted.

arrow