(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나8164 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2018.05.17 2017나8164

계약금반환

Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the main claim

A. On June 16, 2014, the Plaintiffs asserted that they concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 308,000,000 among D and 11 parcels owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff B transferred the down payment of KRW 10 million to the Defendant on June 19, 2014.

However, the defendant, around November 30, 2014, declared that the above sales contract cannot be executed against the plaintiffs and that the defendant will return the down payment. The plaintiffs will cancel the above sales contract by delivering a copy of the complaint of this case on the grounds of the defendant's default (e.g., refusal of performance).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the total sum of KRW 10 million, which is the amount equivalent to the down payment, as the restoration following the cancellation of the above sales contract, and the damages for delay.

B. The judgment is based on the following: the name of the defendant in the seller No. 3-1 (real estate sales contract) is written in the seller’s name, and the seller’s agent column is written in the seller’s agent column; there is no defendant’s seal and the E’s seal is affixed, and there is no evidence to prove that E has the authority to prepare the above document on behalf of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the above document was not used as evidence and that the contract was concluded between the plaintiffs and the defendant as alleged by

Therefore, the plaintiffs' primary argument, which is premised on the conclusion of a sales contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant, is without merit.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. In the event that the sales contract between the plaintiffs' assertion and the defendant constitutes an unauthorized representation, the defendant received a transfer of KRW 10 million from the plaintiffs without any legal ground. Thus, the defendant is a return of unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.12.15 2020가단336

-수원지방법원 2019.07.17 2018가단522757

-의정부지방법원 2016.12.09 2016나55159

-대구지방법원 2015.08.28 2014나20781

-대구지방법원서부지원 2014.11.04 2014가단2352