(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가합15584

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) 수원지방법원 2018.12.21 2018가합15584

분양계약자 명의변경절차 이행청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 35,648,680 and its related amount on November 16, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a woman of Nonparty C, and the defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with C.

B. On December 23, 2016, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the sports center of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation to sell real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the purchase price of KRW 355,800,000.

C. On December 23, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10,000,00 as the first down payment, and KRW 25,648,680 as the second down payment on February 3, 2017, out of the sales price of the instant apartment, to the account at the headquarters of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, which was designated by each of the above sales contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted with C, while engaging in real estate investment business, such as purchase of apartment sales tickets, the Plaintiff leased the Defendant’s name and directly paid the down payment, and there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to transfer the said apartment in the name of the seller and the investor as the actual purchaser and the investor in the future.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty to transfer or change the name of the seller of the apartment in this case to the Plaintiff pursuant to the agreement, and even if such duty is not acknowledged, the Defendant is obligated to return the total sum of the 1,2,648,680 won of the apartment in this case, which the Plaintiff paid in the preliminary place, to the Plaintiff, in unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. We examine the judgment as to the main claim, and even if the plaintiff paid a part of the sale price directly, it cannot be readily concluded that the actual seller is the plaintiff notwithstanding the name of the sale contract, and the plaintiff submitted Gap evidence 4 by asserting that there was an agreement with the defendant on the transfer of the apartment of this case to the name of the seller of the apartment of this case.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.09.20 2018가합120

-대구지방법원서부지원 2017.10.19 2017가단98

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.17 2017가단51665

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가합23132

-울산지방법원 2018.01.24 2017가합22182