logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.10 2016가단338484
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Defendant, the Plaintiff’s female student, around January 2007, as the Plaintiff’s female student, is Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul 101 (hereinafter “instant housing”).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to sell the instant house and return 40% of the profit to the Plaintiff after three years. The Defendant purchased the instant house from the Plaintiff with the investment of the said KRW 50 million, and as the value of the instant house is equivalent to KRW 450 million, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 180,000 ( KRW 450,000 x 40% of the value of the instant house increased to the Plaintiff. (2) The Defendant merely borrowed KRW 45,500,000 out of the purchase price of the instant house from the Plaintiff, and did not agree to distribute the profit or profit.

B. In full view of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the order to submit financial data to the new bank of this court, the defendant purchased the house of this case from D and E on Feb. 7, 2007, the plaintiff who is the defendant's words, remitted the money of KRW 22 million to the defendant on Feb. 23, 2007, KRW 15 million on Mar. 12, 2007, and used the money as part of the purchase price of the house of this case. However, as to whether there was an investment agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff on whether there was an investment agreement as part of the purchase price of the house of this case, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that there is lack of evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the purchase price of the instant housing was 22 billion won. Of them, the amount that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant is merely about 22% of the purchase price, and the Defendant was given a loan from a financial institution equivalent to KRW 100 million out of the purchase price of the instant housing.

arrow