(영문) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.11.02 2016가단597

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) 춘천지방법원영월지원 2016.11.02 2016가단597

매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

On May 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 400,000,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

According to the instant contract, the Plaintiff paid 240,000,000 won out of the purchase price for the instant real estate in lieu of acquiring the obligation of loans (170,000,000 won for loans to Hanwon Credit Union and the principal amount of loans to collateral security (70,000,000 won for loans to Hanwon Credit Union) and paid 20,000,000 won for the down payment, and paid 140,000,000 won for the remainder until July 25, 2015. The Defendant paid 140,000 won for the remainder by the payment date of the remainder of the limited real rights other than each of the above collateral security established on the instant real estate, and had a mutual obligation to transfer the Plaintiff’s full ownership

At the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the instant real estate was set up a collateral of KRW 58,00,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount in E, in addition to the members’ credit union and the collateral security in the name of D, the Plaintiff had acquired the instant real estate at the underwriting

After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the down payment under the instant contract into KRW 30,000,000, and to pay the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000,000, and to change the payment date of the remainder to August 25, 2015.

On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid each of the above down payment of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant, and the intermediate payment of KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant on July 25, 2015.

【The ground for recognition” has no dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion that the purport of the whole pleadings was the purport of the contract of this case was that the defendant had an obligation to cancel the right to collateral security under the name of E established on the real estate of this case, but did not perform the duty of cancellation by the payment date of the balance under the contract of this case. The plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case on the ground that

Therefore, the defendant shall cancel the above contract to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2022. 6. 30. 선고 2022나2005213 판결

-인천지방법원 2016.08.19 2016가합50203

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2019.03.27 2018가단12744

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.01 2014가합21811

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.16 2015가합5409