logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.09.19 2018가합569243
계약금 등 반환청구의 소
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiff A of the Gu working place of the Gu shall be the plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is a business operator who newly built and sold “G”, an aggregate building for officetels (hereinafter “instant officetel”), in the Flive City of Silung-si, and Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”) is a trust company entrusted with the sales management of the instant officetels by Defendant D.

B. The Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract to purchase the instant officetel as listed in the table No. 1 below (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant D, and the instant sales contract contains the contents as listed in the table No. 2 below.

Defendant E signed and sealed the instant sales contract as a trust agent.

In attached Table 1, the scheduled date of occupancy in the instant parcelling-out contract of this case as of May 10, 2015, J. 707,741,00 Schedules 2, 1 A 1 A 224,700,000 H 224,70,000 B B B on May 31, 2016:

Article 11 (Penalty and Refund) (2) When this contract is terminated on the grounds falling under Article 10 (4), the defendant shall pay 10% of the total supply price to the plaintiffs as penalty.

C. The Plaintiffs paid each down payment and intermediate payment as stipulated in the instant sales contract.

On January 30, 2018, Defendant D sent to the Plaintiffs a notice stating that “the construction was delayed due to the changes in the design of civil engineering facilities and the labor strike on ready-mixed vehicles, and the construction was delayed on January 2018.”

E. On May 24, 2018, Defendant D set the occupancy period to the Plaintiffs from June 29, 2018 to August 28, 2018.

arrow