(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.30 2018나21489

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.01.30 2018나21489

매매대금반환

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 5, 2016, the Defendant and D concluded a real estate security trust agreement with G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 5, 2016 in order to construct multi-household housing (hereinafter “multi-household housing”) on each land in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E and F (hereinafter “instant site”).

B. On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs purchased the instant site and multi-household housing in KRW 1,950,000,000 and concluded a contract deposit of KRW 30,000,000 on June 30, 2017, the intermediate payment of KRW 200,000,000 on June 30, 2017 and the intermediate payment of KRW 1,720,00,000 on September 30, 207 are deemed to be the basis for compensation for damages unless otherwise agreed upon (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and stipulated a special agreement as stated in the attached special agreement. The seller column of the instant sales contract is written by the Defendant in the form of agent, and the Defendant’s name is written next to the Defendant’s corporate name, and then the Defendant’s corporate seal is affixed to the representative director’s name.

On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiffs paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 30,000,000.

C. On July 3, 2017, Plaintiff A transferred the ownership of the instant site and multi-household housing to the Defendant immediately until June 30, 2017, and it is impossible for the Defendant, the buyer, to complete the registration of preservation of ownership immediately. In such a case, the Plaintiffs may be subject to criminal punishment for taxation, and the Defendant did not obtain the disposition authority from G, the instant sales contract is null and void, etc.

Therefore, the defendant revoked the sales contract of this case, and the defendant paid down payment to the plaintiffs 30,000.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.10.04 2018가합11926

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015가단105131 (1)

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.14 2018가단5190973

-대전지방법원 2018.10.18 2018가단200690