(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.23 2014나8678

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.07.23 2014나8678

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal on the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The part concerning the counterclaim for a judgment of the first instance; and

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows. The part of "the judgment on a counterclaim" from 4th to 20th 4th 15th 15th 20th 20th 20th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the plaintiff's assertion in the trial is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition to paragraph 3 below, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The part to be mard;

A. According to the judgment on the counterclaim claim, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the unpaid amount of KRW 5,360,000 and delay damages therefrom, out of the sales remaining amount of the instant real estate.

B. As to the judgment on the plaintiff's defense, the plaintiff's obligation to pay the remainder of the payment and the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff are in a simultaneous performance relationship.

According to the statement of No. 1 (a sales contract), the defendant can be found to have agreed to deliver all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership to the plaintiff and to cooperate in the registration procedure at the same time with the payment of the balance of the purchase price and the payment of all documents necessary for the registration of transfer of ownership.

In such a case, the defendant can claim damages for delay due to delay of payment of remaining amount from the day after the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership was implemented. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant performed or provided the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership. Therefore, the plaintiff's simultaneous performance defense is reasonable, and the defendant's claim for damages for delay against the plaintiff is groundless.

3. Matters to be judged additionally;

A. Whether the Plaintiff’s assertion has access roads necessary for the construction permit of the instant real estate

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.10 2014나14284

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.03 2014나23647

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.11 2017나51585

-서울고등법원 2011.11.9.선고 2011나40504 판결

-서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2016나2013909