logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.14 2018가단5022612
부당이득금
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 22, 2012, C entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and C with the Plaintiff to purchase three parcels of land outside Yongsan-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) for KRW 8.46 billion (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid the Plaintiff the down payment amount of KRW 1 billion on the same day.

(2) The Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the contract on June 3, 2013 and the instant sales contract was rescinded around that time after the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the performance several times of delay in paying the remainder.

B. The Defendant filed a claim for full payment against the Plaintiff (1) with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2014Guj47491). On September 3, 2014, the said court rendered a payment order (hereinafter “instant execution order”) with the content that “C shall pay KRW 50 million to the Defendant and its delayed payment damages” (hereinafter “instant execution bond”).

(2) On October 17, 2014, the Defendant, upon the instant payment order, received a claim attachment and assignment order (U.S. District Court 2014TTT No. 23431, hereinafter “instant assignment order”) against the Plaintiff as to C’s claim for the refund of down payment to the Plaintiff due to the rescission of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant claim for the refund of down payment”), and became final and conclusive around that time.

(3) On November 5, 2014, on the basis of the instant assignment order, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the full amount equivalent to KRW 53,030,124, which is the Defendant’s claim amount, against the Plaintiff among the claim claiming the return of the down payment in the instant case (hereinafter “exclusive payment lawsuit”).

On August 25, 2015, the court held that “the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have reverted to the Plaintiff, on the ground that the special agreement, which stipulates the amount equivalent to the down payment under the instant sales contract, cannot be recognized as a penalty, and the down payment cannot be deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff.”

arrow