logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
인천지방법원 2015.11.13 2015가단40714
매매대금반환
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2013 to November 13, 2015, and from the next day.

Reasons

1. On June 28, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell KRW 90 million (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Seo-gu Incheon D D D D D D D D D D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Of the remainder, the Plaintiff received KRW 40 million from the Defendant by having the Defendant take over the collateral debt, and agreed to receive KRW 40 million from the remainder by the end of the end of the year 2012. The Defendant did not dispute between the parties, or completed the registration of ownership transfer on the grounds of the instant sales contract on July 9, 2012, and the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account each of the descriptions and evidence as stated in subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won for the remaining purchase and sale and the amount of the remaining payment from January 1, 2013, which is the day following the due date for the payment of the remainder to November 13, 2015, 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is alleged to have agreed to pay KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff instead of the Defendant, and according to the health belt and evidence No. 3 (Agreement), it is recognized that C agreed to pay the Plaintiff a full payment of KRW 40 million by May 30, 2014, but the above fact of recognition is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to receive a full payment of KRW 40 million only from the Defendant, other than the Defendant, even though the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.

arrow