beta
Text
1. The Defendants amounting to KRW 50 million to each Plaintiff and 15% per annum from October 13, 2017 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 26, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants on each of the lands listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) with respect to the purchase price of KRW 910 million, and the down payment of KRW 80 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 830 million on the date of the contract, and the payment of KRW 830 million on March 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
B. The Defendants paid to the Plaintiff KRW 80 million on the date of the instant sales contract, KRW 70 million on February 26, 2015, and KRW 860 million on March 2, 2015, in total, KRW 860 million on the date of the instant sales contract.
C. When the Defendants were unable to pay KRW 50 million out of the remainder of the instant sales contract, on January 27, 2016, the Defendants registered the establishment of a mortgage with respect to the Plaintiff on January 27, 2016, with respect to the amount of KRW 24,793 square meters and forest 1596 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun, Inc., Ltd., the representative director of which Defendant B is Defendant B, for the Plaintiff on January 27, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to pay to each of the Plaintiff the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 50 million under the instant sales contract (=910 million - KRW 860 million) and delay damages.
B. The Defendants’ assertion and judgment 1) concluded the instant sales contract with the belief of a real estate broker, etc., and concluded a registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate in the course of the loan of intermediate payment, but did not acquire the ownership of each of the instant real estate, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable. (2) The Defendants believed that the resale profit would occur as alleged by the Defendants in the instant case.