(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.01 2014가합5886

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) 수원지방법원 2015.12.01 2014가합5886

계약금반환 등

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) was registered on December 18, 2006 as a company engaging in real estate development business, etc., and Plaintiff A is the representative director of D.

B. On May 21, 2007, the Defendant entered into a contract under which E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant land”) KRW 2,724,00,000 (50,000 out of KRW 270,000,000,000 on the date of the contract, the remainder of KRW 220,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 30,000 on the date of May 22, 2007, 200: (a) the remainder of KRW 1,080,000 on June 21, 2007; (b) the remainder of KRW 1,374,00,000 on June 21, 207; and (c) the buyer participated in the instant contract (hereinafter “instant contract”); and (d) the content of the instant contract included the Plaintiff’s participation in Nonparty 1’s conclusion as follows.

Article 7 (1) In cases where a seller or a purchaser has performed a default under this contract, the other party may demand in writing the seller or the purchaser to perform the contract and rescind the contract.

(2) Where a contract is rescinded pursuant to paragraph (1), unless otherwise expressly agreed, if the buyer has neglected the contract, the contract deposit shall be confiscated, and if the seller has neglected it, the seller shall agree to compensate for a double of the contract deposit.

Article 3 of the Special Agreement provides that the seller shall issue a written consent to land use at the same time as the contract is concluded.

The contents of paragraph (3) shall be null and void, the contract shall be null and void, and the contract deposit paid shall be governed by Article 7 of the contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they were the plaintiffs, and that they rescinded the contract of this case around August 2007 by failing to perform their duty to issue a written consent to land use, which is the special terms of the contract of this case, and that they were paid to the defendant under Article 7 of the contract of this case. twice the down payment of this case is paid to the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.06.02 2016나34104

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.01.23 2017가합101089

-대구지방법원 2016.01.22 2014가단55052

-춘천지방법원 원주지원 2018.02.07 2017가단33468

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.23 2015가합111540