logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.07 2016가합103263
계약금 반환 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The facts below the underlying facts do not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged by taking account of the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3-1, 2, 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3.

A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) concluded a sales contract with the network D on January 26, 2006, which sets the sales price of KRW 2.26,80,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”) on the land of Jongno-gu Seoul and the main complex building (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) between the network D on January 26, 2006 in order to carry out the business of constructing and selling the main complex building (hereinafter referred to as the “instant business”) on the land of KRW 95,00,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sales contract”). The contract deposit is KRW 2.6,60,000,000 and the remainder is KRW 2.3,472,000,000,000,000 and the contract deposit was paid as penalty if the remainder is not paid by December 31, 2006.

B. As the net D did not pay any balance under the instant sales contract until December 31, 2006, which is the remaining payment date, it notified B of the cancellation of the instant sales contract on January 8, 2007 on the grounds of the remainder payment, and the notification reached B around that time.

C. On the other hand, B entered into a contract on June 30, 2006 with F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) for the transfer of business rights and obligations (including the buyer’s status under the sales contract for the instant site) to F. D.

The Defendant, as the heir of the network D, was a person who completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on inheritance by a division held on August 2, 2013 with respect to each of the instant real estate on March 31, 2014, and succeeded to the status of the seller under the present sales contract of the network D.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion first is a party to the instant sales contract.

arrow