logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합7599
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The defendant's 170,500,000 won and each of the above money to the plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointed C, respectively.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On October 26, 2004, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selected Party C (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) purchased KRW 8,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of KRW 182,70,00 from the Hanwon-gun, Gangwon-gun, and KRW 51,000 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) around 26, 204, the purchase price of KRW 296,00,000 from the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter “the first purchase price”). Accordingly, the Nonparty Company paid KRW 296,00,000,000 for the purchase price.

Plaintiff

On November 1, 2004, around 45,000 of the instant real estate (hereinafter “second-party land”) was purchased from the non-party company at KRW 45,000 (hereinafter “second-party sales contract”). Accordingly, on November 22, 2004, the non-party company paid KRW 45,000,000 of the said sales price to the non-party company.

On the other hand, upon entering into each of the above sales contracts, the non-party company agreed to deliver each of the above lands to the plaintiff et al. within five months from the date of purchase of each of the above lands from D and E, and to complete the registration of transfer of ownership on each of

B. On April 18, 2005, the Plaintiff et al. prepared a sales contract with the non-party company and the non-party company on August 31, 2005, including the delivery date of land No. 1 and land No. 2.

At this time, the defendant guaranteed the debt of the non-party company related to the above sales contract to the plaintiff et al.

C. After August 31, 2005, the Plaintiff et al. notified the non-party company of the obligation to transfer ownership and to deliver ownership over several occasions, but the non-party company did not perform the obligation.

Accordingly, the plaintiff et al. rescinded each of the above sales contract by serving a copy of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the non-party company's transfer registration obligation and delay of delivery obligation.

Therefore, according to the above sales contract, the non-party company's debt guarantee is the joint guarantor.

arrow