(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나32041

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 2016.04.27 2015나32041

부동산매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 22, 2005, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract on the instant house (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the head of the Defendant on July 2, 2005, which owned a cement block structure and a 37.36 square meters of the instant house, a house built on the ground of 106 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The sales price was KRW 73,000,000 among the down payment was KRW 30,000,000 on the date of the contract, the remainder of KRW 43,00,000 on August 22, 2005, and the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on August 12, 2005 (hereinafter “No. 1”). The Plaintiff’s cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the instant house, which was established on August 12, 2005.

B. After preparing the first contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on July 22, 2005, drafted the same date as the date of the contract, 52,300,000 won which is lower than the first contract, and the remaining payment date of the contract is earlier than August 22, 2005, respectively, on August 12, 2005, respectively. (hereinafter “second contract”).

C. On August 12, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (No. 3 certificate; hereinafter “third contract”) on July 22, 2005 with the name of the purchaser G, the Defendant, who is not the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request on August 12, 2005, with the same terms and conditions as the second contract, and entered into a sales contract (No. 3 certificate; hereinafter “third contract”). The Defendant, while having the same terms and conditions as the third contract and having the same terms and conditions as the one in the contract, has stated each “closed box” in the column for the down payment and the remainder, and keeps the contract with the Plaintiff’s seal affixed (No. 9; hereinafter “

By August 10, 2005, the Plaintiff fulfilled all the cancellation of the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage and two cancellations of the seizure, which is the Plaintiff’s duty under the instant sales contract. On August 16, 2005, the instant housing was registered in G.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.08 2013가단201699

-광주지방법원 2020.06.19 2019가단4392

-광주지방법원 2018.07.13 2017가단517931

-서울서부지방법원 2015.08.21 2014가단14873

-제주지방법원 2017.12.20 2017나209