beta
Text
1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 65 million to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from January 14, 2015 to July 23, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, a corporation established for the purpose of building construction business, etc., entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff at KRW 170 million to the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 150 million. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 150 million from the Gwangju New Port Credit Union and paid it to the Plaintiff as part of the purchase price.
B. On the other hand, on May 9, 2014, the Plaintiff performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate to the Defendant.
【Uncontentious facts, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul’s evidence No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The parties’ assertion asserts that the Plaintiff received KRW 100 million from the Defendant as part of the sales price of the instant real estate, and that the Defendant made a verbal agreement to pay the remainder of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff not later than the end of July 2014, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the sales price of KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff and the damages for delay.
As to this, the Defendant: (a) reduced the sales price of the instant real estate from KRW 170 million to the special discount for long-term unsold in lots; (b) on the other hand, the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff out of the sales price; (c) the remainder of the sales price is KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff; and (d) agreed to pay the remainder to the Plaintiff after May 9, 2017. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unjust since the due date has not yet arrived.
B. First of all, the determination on the key issue is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to perform the remaining obligation of the sales price at the end of July 2014 or after May 9, 2017, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion are without merit, and the remaining payment is determined.