logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.03.19 2018나9691
매매대금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following ‘2. Additional determination' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. Regarding the assertion that the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the loan maturity date, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) provides that “Defendant D shall provide the Plaintiff with the necessary personal information and financial information and passbook so that it can freely manage and repay the interest and funds of the commercial building of this case by providing the loan-related occasional entry passbook.” However, the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the maturity date of the loan of this case is extended by six months, and up to January 23, 2017. The Plaintiff did not conclude the instant sales contract if it was known that the loan will be kept unstable due to the loan maturity period not less than six months. In addition, the Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with information on the loan extension of six months on the condition that it was impossible to extend the maturity date on January 25, 2017, but did not inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the Defendants did not provide the Plaintiff with the information on the loan extension of the maturity date after the extension of the contract of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants did not dispute the Defendants’ specific agreement.

arrow