beta
Text
1. The Defendant is based on the sale on November 14, 2013, with respect to the area of 932 square meters in Jeonju-gun, Jeonju-gun.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 14, 2013, the Defendant drafted a pre-sale agreement of KRW 197,400,000 for real estate sales (Evidence No. 4) with respect to the purchase price of KRW 197,40,000 for the instant land and the building on the ground (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant real estate”), which combines the instant land and the building on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”).
B. On November 14, 2013, the day of the contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 20,000,000 as down payment, and KRW 177,40,000 as of May 29, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 4, witness E's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) paid the purchase price to the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and thereafter paid the purchase price to the Defendant at the Defendant’s additional request, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant land. 2) The Defendant’s assertion did not have concluded the instant sales contract with the Plaintiff, and entered into a contract with “D and one other” as stated in the evidence No. 4, so the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.
B. Determination (whether to conclude the instant sales contract) states that Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 7, 8, 10, and 11-a witness E’s testimony is as follows, comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings. In other words, although the entry as a purchaser of a real estate sales contract was stated as "D and one other" at the place where the instant sales contract was concluded, the Plaintiff’s actual representative director F, directors, and Ha engaged in the business upon receiving land purchase services from the Plaintiff’s side, and E was notified the Defendant as the purchaser of the instant real estate, and accordingly, it was related to the sales price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.