logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.09 2017가합514109
채무부존재확인
Text

1. Between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on January 20, 2016, the area of D large 1,100 square meters and its ground.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant to sell 100 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 250 square meters (hereinafter “instant unregistered building”) in total of the sales price for the Plaintiff’s 1/2 shares, and 2.0 billion won (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). In concluding a contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, the Plaintiffs determined to pay the remainder of KRW 200 million on February 20, 2016 and KRW 100 million on March 30, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 100 million on the following day to the seller before the settlement of the rental deposit and the bank loan should be revised by a special agreement.

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant paid KRW 100 million out of KRW 200 million to the Defendant on January 20, 2016, which is the date of the said contract, and the remaining KRW 100 million to the Defendant on January 21, 2016, which is the following day. The intermediate payment KRW 200 million to the Defendant on January 25, 2016, which is prior to the due date.

C. However, the Plaintiffs did not restore or newly establish the building ledger for the instant unregistered buildings until now, and the registration of ownership transfer for each 1/2 of the instant land was not completed in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant also did not pay the Plaintiffs the remainder of KRW 1.6 billion under the instant sales contract until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' claim 1 as to the primary argument is that the plaintiffs are not primarily obligated to restore or build the building ledger of the unregistered building in this case under the sales contract of this case, and the plaintiffs are not obligated to restore or build the building ledger of the unregistered building in this case.

arrow