logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.08.25 2016가단119351
매매대금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 65,00,000 and its KRW 5,000 among them, the Defendant shall start January 8, 2017, and the remainder 60,000.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased at KRW 300,000,00 the building No. 1, Dong 201 (hereinafter “instant building”) of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Daejeon District Court at KRW 80946 on September 20, 2010, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the 1/2 shares of the instant building (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the instant buildings as the receipt No. 80946 on September 20, 2010.

B. On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to pay the sales price of KRW 100,000,000 for the instant shares, and the down payment of KRW 10,000,000 for the intermediate payment of KRW 30,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 30,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 60,000 on March 18, 2016, respectively (hereinafter “instant sales”).

C. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 out of the instant purchase price, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on March 31, 2016 by Daejeon District Court Branch Decision 28739, which received on March 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion that the purchase price of this case was KRW 150,000,00, the Plaintiff and the Defendant stated the purchase price in KRW 100,000 to pay tax less than tax, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 115,00,000 (=150,000,000 - already paid KRW 35,00,000) to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) Inasmuch as the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, denying the probative value of the disposal document is not allowed unless there exists any special reason (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu10484, Nov. 10, 1989). The Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of acquiring the ownership of the building of this case, was KRW 300,000,000, as seen earlier.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, it is recognized that non-party D prepared a statement to the effect that the purchase price of this case was KRW 150,000,000 on November 23, 2016.

However, the dispute between the parties.

arrow