(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.06.26 2013가단38180

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) 대구지방법원 2014.06.26 2013가단38180

계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a real estate sales contract (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”) with a real estate sales contract with a sales price of KRW 560 million with respect to the amount of 346 square meters in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, which is owned by the Defendant, and KRW 100 million with a down payment of KRW 40 million with a contract date, and a down payment of KRW 60 million with a July 11, 2013, and the remainder amount of KRW 460 million with a buyer’s agreement with a buyer (it shall be paid on May 15, 2013, and it shall be possible to adjust with a buyer).

B. According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the down payment of KRW 100 million totaling KRW 40 million on March 5, 2013 and KRW 60 million on March 8, 2013 to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s agent C requested the Plaintiff to prepare a “consumed contract” in which the purchase price of KRW 560 million is reduced to KRW 300 million without any sea after the instant contract was concluded, and the Plaintiff refused it, and the Plaintiff refused it, thereby making the contract and returning the down payment in accordance with the initial contract, and C would reverse the contract if it fails to prepare the multiple contract, and return the down payment.

Therefore, as to whether C agreed to return the down payment, it is not sufficient to recognize it only with the statement of No. 4 and the testimony of the witness E as to whether C agreed to return the down payment, and this part of the allegation is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff also requested the Defendant to prepare a continuous package contract and did not enter into an agreement on the date of payment of the balance. If the Defendant had expressed his/her position on the package contract, the Plaintiff cancelled the said contract by delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s restoration to the original state pursuant to the above contract cancellation.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원홍성지원 2014.03.26 2013가단9161

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.12.23 2019가합12103

-부산지방법원 2015.11.05 2015가단14217

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단34228

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.16 2016가단24841