logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.20 2017가단5092966
매매대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) as listed below with respect to Nos. 104, 105, and 106 of underground floor 104, 105, and 106 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the commercial facilities of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Building B sold by the Defendant, and paid the down payment of KRW 154,00,000, out of the sales price as listed below.

C

B. In the instant sales contract, when the Plaintiff did not pay the intermediate payment or the remainder for at least 1 month from the due date of payment, and the Defendant did not pay the intermediate payment or the remainder at least 14 days of grace period at least twice, the Defendant may rescind the contract. In such a case, the Plaintiff agreed to pay 10% of the total supply price as penalty.

C. The Plaintiff did not pay the remainder of the intermediate payment and the balance, excluding the down payment, among the sales price of the instant commercial building, and the Defendant cancelled the instant sales contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer with a third party on the instant commercial building.

[Reasons] There is no dispute about Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the plaintiff's argument about the cause of claim as a whole after concluding the sales contract of this case, and the part payment and balance were not paid after the conclusion of the contract of this case, which is the defendant's employee in charge of parcelling-out, made oral agreements to prepare a modified contract to sell the commercial building of this case in 1,001,00,000 won by discounting the sales price without imposing interest, etc. based on the sales contract of this case at the end

D did not go to the approval of the vice president of the defendant's head office in order to raise the above contents, but the written changes in the form of the contract has been sent by the defendant to urge the payment of the Gap's own intermediate payment and the balance and the notice of the scheduled cancellation of the contract.

Although the Plaintiff was a seller, the Defendant sold double ownership to a third party and completed ownership transfer registration. Thus, the down payment that the Plaintiff paid pursuant to the instant sales contract was 154.

arrow