logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.09.14 2014나9086
대여금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 1991, the Defendants inherited 2/7 shares of E, E, 7,343 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The remaining 3/7 shares were inherited by the Defendants’ mother.

B. On November 12, 2001, Defendant B purchased the said D’s share on the instant land from G at the successful bid and completed the registration of transfer of the share on the 14th of the same month.

C. The Defendants, via D, issued a sales contract with the Defendants’ signature and seal affixed to the seller’s column (hereinafter “instant contract”). D.

The Defendants sold the instant land to F on March 1, 2013, and F in the same month.

4. The registration of the transfer of all shares of the Defendants was completed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around the end of 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with D by setting the purchase price of the instant land as KRW 95 million; and (b) at the time the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a sales contract with D with respect to the instant land as KRW 50 million; (c) KRW 50 million, in lieu of the Plaintiff’s loan principal and interest on the loan to the external third village He; and (d) the remainder of KRW 45 million, in exchange for documents necessary for registration. The Defendants sold the instant land to F and completed share transfer registration; and (e) the said sales contract was impossible due to the Defendants’ sale of the instant land to F and completed share transfer registration, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 70 million (Defendant B50 million, Defendant C220 million, and Defendant C2 million) according to their share ratio.

3. For the purpose of the conclusion of a judgment contract, it is required that there exists a mutual agreement between the parties, and such mutual agreement is not necessary with respect to all matters constituting the content of the contract in question, but with respect to its essential or important matters.

arrow