logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.09.17 2019나4345
유체동산인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that was changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

Reasons

1. On August 4, 2017, the court written a sales contract (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) with the content that “the Plaintiff, on August 4, 2017, sold the instant house to D with the payment period of KRW 26,00,000,000, and the payment period of KRW 30 August 30, 2017,” and “the Plaintiff, on August 4, 2017, entered into a sales contract with D with the payment period of KRW 26,000,000 for the instant house and KRW 26,00,000 for the instant house, and the payment period of KRW 20,00 for the instant house on August 30, 2017.” The Plaintiff and D signed and sealed the instant sales contract (hereinafter “the sales contract of this case”) with the signature and seal thereon under the main text of Article 40 of the Civil Procedure Act other than the amendment of the sales contract of this case.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On April 22, 2020, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff sold the instant house to D Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff, D, and the Defendant, paid the price from D, or received refined oil made in the course of clinical process by paying the costs of clinical process to the Defendant. The Plaintiff did not conclude an actual sales contract for the instant house, and the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant house, and thus, the Defendant was obliged to return to the Defendant.

Although the plaintiff's assertion is somewhat unclear, it is deemed that the plaintiff and the corporation D filed a claim for the return of the instant house with respect to the reason that the contract was not concluded between the plaintiff and the corporation.

The Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (No. 3) with respect to the instant hanok Co., Ltd. with D, but it did not enter into a sales contract with the same content as the sales contract. However, the Plaintiff paid the cost of processing the instant hanok to the Defendant who occupies the instant hanok.

arrow