(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.27 2018가단5115453

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.27 2018가단5115453

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. (1) On March 2017, the Plaintiff sold the Plaintiff’s right under the Plaintiff’s passbook to sell in lots to the Defendant in the order of special order of priority for the Defendant and the multi-child, to the Defendant. However, if the Plaintiff sells the right under the passbook to another person twice, the Plaintiff shall return the amount of KRW 40 million, including penalty, to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the penalty agreement under the sales contract is “instant penalty agreement”.

(2) The Plaintiff received KRW 20 million from the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract, and issued and delivered a promissory note with a face value of KRW 40 million to the Defendant as a collateral for the instant penalty agreement. On April 4, 2017, a notary public signed a notarial deed to the effect that, in the event that the Plaintiff was immediately subject to compulsory execution on the part of a law firm C’s certificate 2017, the Plaintiff did not object to the instant notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On April 18, 2017, the Plaintiff, using the above subscription passbook, sold the E-building F units from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) C.

However, around June 2017, the Plaintiff sold to G and H the rights under the instant sales contract.

Accordingly, on July 4, 2017, the Defendant was rendered a decision to seize the Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration under the instant sales contract against D (U.S. District Court Decision 2017TBT7819) based on the instant notarial deed.

E. On April 3, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40 million to the Defendant in accordance with the instant penalty agreement, and subsequently agreed with the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant who received KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff shall confirm the extinguishment of the obligation based on the instant authentic deed” with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, and pleadings.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.11.13 2020고정738

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.20 2017가단15454

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2016가단42493

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.12.23 2020가단109337

-창원지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단86311