(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.04.28 2016재가합11

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) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.04.28 2016재가합11

재심청구

Text

1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the defendant;

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The following facts are apparent in the records or significant to this Court:

The Plaintiff asserted that the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the real estate owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) was cancelled, and that the Defendant was obligated to return the down payment amount of KRW 135 million received from the Plaintiff, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for refund of the sales price of KRW 2005Ga154 in this court.

(hereinafter referred to as "case subject to review"). (b)

On December 22, 2015, the court concluded the argument of the case subject to reexamination. On January 12, 2006, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the instant sales contract on May 2, 2006, the court decided to cancel the seizure and provisional seizure registration established in the said real estate as the down payment and deliver documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the Plaintiff. On May 2, 2002, the Defendant received KRW 135 million from the down payment and did not deliver documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to a third party on August 22, 2002, thereby failing to perform the obligation of the Defendant to transfer ownership of the said real estate to the Plaintiff, and the instant sales contract accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for adjudication subject to adjudication on July 31, 2005 on the ground that it was lawful by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to cancel on July 31, 2005.

C. On January 19, 2006, the Defendant served an original copy of the judgment subject to a retrial and appealed on February 3, 2006, but on February 3, 2006, the judgment subject to a retrial became final and conclusive upon receipt of an order to dismiss the petition of appeal on the grounds of the Do governor’s appeal period.

On December 29, 2015, the Defendant filed a request for reexamination of the instant case.

2. The witness D of the case subject to review of the summary of the defendant's assertion is the person who participated as the plaintiff's joint and several sureties at the time of concluding the contract of this case, and the plaintiff is willing to take over the defendant's collateral security obligation against the Tae Y

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.10.30 2014가합4979

-전주지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나9946

-서울고등법원 2015.01.29 2014나26882

-춘천지방법원 2005. 11. 18. 선고 2005노352 판결

-대법원 2006. 3. 10. 선고 2005도9402 판결