logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.29 2013가합40815
부당이득금반환 등
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1 Status of the Parties

(3) The Plaintiff: (a) is a commercial building in the area of 773 large 4,144.3 square meters in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant commercial building”); and (b) is a commercial building in the area of 773 large 4,144.3 square meters.

) A new project (hereinafter referred to as “new project of this case”)

) A project implementer that implemented the Company, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Rourg”) is a project implementer.

A) The Plaintiff entered into an overall execution contract with the reconstruction association to acquire the right of lease of the commercial building of this case and sell it in lots, and the Defendant Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Construction”).

(2) The Plaintiffs concluded each lease agreement with respect to the individual stores of the instant shopping mall or succeeded to the status of the buyer under the lease agreement.

B. On September 12, 2002, in the case of concluding a lease contract with the Plaintiffs, the tele-building association and the Baurg entered into a general execution contract with respect to the new construction project of this case. The Plaintiffs (Plaintiff E succeeded to the lease contract with the Baurg, Plaintiff H succeeded to the lease contract with the Baurg, and Plaintiff H succeeded to the lease contract with the Baurg) as indicated below in the table “sale contract (the date of succession)” as indicated below, entered into a lease contract with the intent to sell the right to lease of each store as indicated in the table “subject matter” among the commercial buildings of this case (hereinafter “each lease contract of this case”) and received from the Plaintiffs the money indicated in the column “actual payment” as the sale price.

On July 11, 2007, the actual amount of the sale price of the object for the plaintiff's sale in lots (date of succession) A 1 A 19,350,000 112,00,000 B B B 112,350,000 119,350,000 112,350,000 3 C C on July 11, 2007, 2003 C on July 12, 2007, 119,350,000 119,350,000 12,000 112,00,004 D D on the underground floor on July 11, 2007.

arrow