(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가합103509

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가합103509

정산금 등

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 31,500,000 and for this, KRW 5% per annum from April 4, 2018 to May 2, 2019.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Decision 1 on the claim for the payment of settlement money related to subparagraph 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Franchi-gun of Gyeonggi-gu, 972 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

3) On the ground, the apartment house (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) is located on the ground.

(2) Defendant B is the implementer of the business building and parcelling-out, and Defendant B is the 1/4 share of the above land. The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant B on the share of 1/4 share of the above land. Although the Plaintiff intended to pay the remainder of the purchase price for the instant apartment, the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant apartment E was completed with Defendant B on the pretext of payment in substitutes with the late payment in lots. However, the above transfer registration is completed on the condition of calculating the balance between the purchase price and the E market price, and the difference is settled. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a settlement amount of KRW 3750,500,000,000,000,000,000 calculated the balance of the purchase price from the market price of KRW 550,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won, which is 37,2,500,000 won.

However, even if the Plaintiff is a project implementer who has the authority to dispose of each apartment unit of this case in an internal relationship with the above co-ownership right holder, the Plaintiff and Defendant B cannot claim the payment of the settlement amount unless it is acknowledged that there is any difference between the Plaintiff and Defendant B. Therefore, it is insufficient to acknowledge the existence of the settlement agreement as above only with the statement of health team and evidence No. 7-1 as to the existence of the settlement agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the remainder is the same.

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2019.02.14 2018가합268

-대법원 2012.5.24. 선고 2009추91 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가단5163837

-서울남부지방법원 2019.08.27 2018가단262763

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.09.26 2014나7703