beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from February 28, 2013 to March 7, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted that, around July 2012, the Plaintiff sold Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (Seoul) No. 701, which was one’s own possession, to the Defendant, and that, even though the purchase price was KRW 2.4 million, the Defendant paid KRW 22 million among them, and thus, the Defendant should pay the remainder of money.
The defendant asserts that even if the sales contract for the above 701 was not concluded or even if it was concluded, the above 701 was transferred to the non-party D through voluntary auction, so the plaintiff cannot transfer his ownership of the above 701 to the defendant, so he did not have any obligation to pay the balance of the sales contract for the reason of the plaintiff's default. Thus, even if it was not so, he did not have any obligation to pay the balance of the sales contract for the reason of the plaintiff's default. Even if the purchase price is 230 million won, it was 20 million won as the repayment of the collateral collateral obligation, and 4.4 million won as the redemption fee, 532,820 won as interest.
2. Determination
A. First, we examine whether the sales contract for the above 701 was concluded.
The above 701 is the debtor, and the mortgagee was the plaintiff, and the mortgagee was established with the right to collateral security, which is the dong Saemaul Depository. On July 24, 2012, the defendant was granted a loan of 23,50 million won as collateral of the above 701 under the name of E on July 25, 2012 and paid the plaintiff's collateral security obligation of KRW 220,000,000,000 and interest KRW 532,820,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and cancelled the above collateral security. The defendant leased the above 701 on December 21, 2012 to F and received such deposit and monthly tax, etc., there is no dispute between the parties.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant exercised exclusive authority over the above 701, and the plaintiff and the defendant concluded a sales contract for the above 701, and the defendant purchased it from the plaintiff.
B. Next, it is impossible to transfer the above 701 ownership due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff.