(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.10.02 2018가단50446

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) 제주지방법원 2018.10.02 2018가단50446

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 116,980,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 22, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Around November 2015, a real estate substitute payment contract was made with the purport that “C, etc. shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 116,980,00,000, which is owned by the subrogated debtor as to the damages to be repaid to the Plaintiff, as to D’s hotel E 229, which is located in Seopopo City.”

(Subrogation debtor's name was written in the name of the defendant, and the defendant's employee seal was affixed next thereto).

Around that time, a supply contract with the price of KRW 116,980,00 for the above hotel E 229 (hereinafter “the instant building”) was prepared (the Plaintiff’s seal was affixed to the contractor column, and the name of each company is omitted in the execution company, the contractor and the trust company.

On November 9, 2015, a receipt was drawn up in the name of the Defendant that the Plaintiff paid in full the down payment of KRW 11,698,00 and the intermediate payment and the remainder of the building of this case in total KRW 105,282,00.

C. On September 1, 2017, the Korean Asset Trust conducted a public auction on the entire building of the hotel E including the instant building (hereinafter “instant hotel”) at the request of a comprehensive liquidation construction, which is a priority beneficiary under the trust agreement, but was completed on October 17, 2017 as of October 17, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul's statement in subparagraph 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties asserts that the procedure for registration of ownership transfer is not implemented, since the plaintiff entered into a supply contract with C as to the building of this case under a payment agreement with C lawfully authorized by the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the plaintiff's loss.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that C does not have any delegation of the authority of accord and satisfaction with respect to the building of this case, and there is no way to conclude a direct payment agreement with

3. Determination A.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.22 2016가단20353

-제주지방법원 2018.07.03 2018가단2461

-서울서부지방법원 2015.07.16 2014가단217221

-서울고등법원 2019.05.14 2018나2039356

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.29 2017가합53392