beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 165,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5% per annum from May 29, 2015 to January 26, 2016.
Reasons
The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence No. 1, No. 2-1, and No. 2-2 may be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings.
The Defendant paid KRW 128 million to C on June 20, 2009, as the agreement amount of the case in which Nonparty C filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff as a crime of fraud.
On June 26, 2009, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant a building of 1,150,000,000 square meters and above land (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) for the land of 1,314 square meters and above to the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract”), and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 1, 2009 with respect to the instant real estate.
The Defendant agreed to pay only KRW 1.15 billion (= KRW 60 million) out of KRW 1.15 billion in relation to the payment of the purchase price at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, in lieu of the Defendant’s acquisition of the secured debt for the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage that was completed on the instant real estate. ② KRW 128 million in lieu of the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the Plaintiff. ③ KRW 172 million in lieu of the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff renounced it, and ④ the Defendant’s remainder of KRW 250 million in the Plaintiff (= KRW 1.155 billion in the amount of KRW 628 million in the amount of KRW 1.28 billion in the amount of KRW 60 million in the amount of KRW 1.5 billion in the amount of KRW 172,000 in the amount of KRW 250 million in the amount of KRW 30,60 on June 30, 209).
Around November 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff as the sales price of the instant case.
Judgment
Comprehensively taking account of these facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200 million as the purchase price (=250 million - Defendant’s repayment on November 201, 2010) and damages for delay therefrom, barring any special circumstances.
The defendant's assertion regarding the defendant's assertion is not the defendant purchased the real estate of this case from the plaintiff.