logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.10.26 2016가단81793
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with C, the Defendant’s mother, to pay the remainder (excluding the bank loan interest on the instant real estate) by December 31, 2016 (hereinafter “the sales contract”). The Plaintiff entered the new bank passbook (one account number D; hereinafter “the Account”) with the Defendant’s name in the last page of 15 million won, and the purchase price for the instant building is KRW 435 million, and the down payment is KRW 20 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment is 60 million, and the remainder (excluding the bank loan interest on the instant real estate) shall be paid by December 31, 2016. The Plaintiff entered the sales contract in the last page of 200,300,000 won on the receipt of KRW 360,000,000,000,000 won (hereinafter “the instant account”) by December 31, 2016.

enter into force under mutual agreement.

The descriptions are as follows:

B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 20 million to the instant account on the day of the contract pursuant to the instant sales contract.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 60,000,000,000 as the instant account for intermediate payment, and KRW 13,000 on September 13, 2016, KRW 20,000 on November 4, 2016, and KRW 30 million on November 10, 2016.

On November 30, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The instant sales contract is null and void since the Defendant’s mother’s mother did not have the power to conclude the sales contract, and is expected to deposit KRW 80 million paid by the Plaintiff,” and deposited KRW 80 million on November 30, 2016.

[Ground of certification] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 5, 9 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 6, Eul's testimony, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is between F and F, the former owner of the instant land, around May 24, 2012.

arrow