logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016가단21176
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant sold to D, around August 30, 2005, 1,256 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On October 11, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D against D, Seoul Northern District Court 2010Ka6076,6076, on the ground that “A purchase contract was concluded between D and D, which was delegated with the authority to purchase the said land by C, to purchase the said land at KRW 212,50,000,000, and the said land was paid for the total amount of KRW 142,00,000,000, and the land transaction permission for the instant land was not possible, and the obligation to transfer ownership was impossible due to the registration of establishment of a mortgage equivalent to the maximum amount of debt amount of KRW 2.8 billion, and thus, it is impossible to perform the obligation to register the ownership, and thus, D, rescinded the said sale contract and sought the return of the purchase price already paid.”

On October 7, 2010, D sentenced the Plaintiff to pay 142,00,000 won and 140,000,000 won among them to the Plaintiff from October 11, 2005, 2,000,000 won per annum from September 29, 2006 to July 29, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. On December 7, 2007, the Defendant received a ruling of provisional seizure of real estate against C as KRW 162,00,000,000, the amount claimed.

(F) On April 27, 2012, the compulsory auction of real estate held on April 27, 2012, the defendant received dividends of KRW 162,00,000 as a provisional seizure authority, in the order of 3rd as a provisional seizure authority.

(hereinafter “instant dividends 1”). C.

On September 8, 2005, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with D on September 8, 2005, to purchase the instant land at KRW 212,50,000,000, and paid KRW 142,00,000 in total the down payment and the intermediate payment. The Defendant did not implement an agreement to divide the instant land into one half of the land and did not enter into a sales contract.

arrow