(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.11 2018나80881

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.11 2018나80881

매매계약무효확인등의 소

Text

1.In accordance with the conjunctive claim added at the trial of the first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall incur KRW 180,000,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when adding or adding to, the following is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The following shall be added at the second 19-round the second 19-round end of the judgment of the court of first instance:

The defendant paid to the plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 among the intermediate payment on October 31, 2006, and KRW 80,000 for the remaining intermediate payment on November 9, 2006, respectively. The following is added to the third nine parallels in the judgment of the first instance.

Article 11 (Duties of Rights) ① “A” shall agree to the buyer even if the buyer is changed due to the need for the progress of the project, and shall recognize the continuity of this contract as a party to the changed buyer and cooperate with the buyer, such as submission of documents necessary for the modification and consent of the other contract and the change of buyer. ② “A” shall provide all documents necessary for the application for approval of the business plan of “B” at the same time with the contract for the change of buyer.”

Article 21, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Housing Act is added to the fourth 17 mar of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition, "each description, including 8 identification numbers, shall be added to the grounds for recognition of 5 pages of the first instance judgment."

The following contents shall be added at the fifth 9-round end of the judgment of the first instance:

In addition, even if the transfer of ownership does not interfere with the real estate of this case, it is difficult to secure the entire project site of this case or it is impossible to approve the project plan, the defendant may rescind the contract of this case on this ground, and even if the project operator is changed to a third party who is not the defendant, the consent of the buyer is forced to the plaintiff. In light of the above, the plaintiff and the defendant shall complete

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-주택법 제21조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.06.21 2018나49170

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나83880

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.18 2018나37528

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.29 2019나6224

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.12 2018나65998