(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.11.27 2015가단9730

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2015.11.27 2015가단9730

계약금반환청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase 870,000,000 square meters of land (hereinafter “instant contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 87,00,000 on the same day.

B. The Defendant, April 30, 2015, the intermediate payment payment date, is the same year.

5. On May 13, 2015, when the Plaintiff did not pay part payments, the Plaintiff issued a certificate of the content that “In the event that the intermediate payment is not made by May 18, 2015, the seller cannot rescind the contract due to nonperformance. The sender sent the certificate of the content that “In the event that the intermediate payment is not made by the end of May 18, 2015.” The sender sent the certificate of the content that “In the event that the seller is obliged to pay part payments and remainder under the contract with the seller after entering into the contract with the seller, the sender is also obliged to pay part payments and remainder under the contract with the other real estate.”

(hereinafter “this case’s content certification”). / [Grounds for recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the contract in this case was lawfully rescinded by the defendant's notification of rescission of the contract in this case, and the defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 87,00,000 to the plaintiff by restitution, and the defendant also asserts that the down payment paid as a penalty should be returned, since the contract in this case was not damaged by the rescission of the contract in this case.

As to whether the contract of this case was terminated, the content of the content certification of this case can not be seen as the notification of cancellation to the Plaintiff that the Defendant would definitely urge the Plaintiff to perform the obligation to pay the remaining purchase price under the contract of this case. In light of the fact that the contents of the content certification of this case cannot be seen as the notification of cancellation of the contract of this case, the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the testimony of the witness D alone are insufficient to recognize

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.12.02 2015가합2200

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.08.22 2017가합100819

-전주지방법원군산지원 2019.07.02 2018가단54239

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.03.25 2020가단6870

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2015.10.05 2015고정214