beta
Text
1. On the basis of the main claim added at the trial court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 700 million and its amount from January 1, 2009.
Reasons
1. (1) Around April 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife M (hereinafter “the Defendant’s husband and wife”) to sell the instant apartment (hereinafter “the instant apartment”) price of KRW 1.7 billion (the contract amount of KRW 300 million, intermediate payments, and the remainder amount of KRW 700 million) to the Plaintiff’s wife M (hereinafter “the Defendant’s husband and wife”) located in Songpa-gu N, Seoul, where the reconstruction was promoted. This was removed by reconstruction and a new apartment was constructed on the same page. The down payment at that time was not received from the Plaintiff.
(2) Accordingly, on May 2, 2008, the Defendant issued a promissory note with the face value of 1.5 billion won and prepared a notarial deed with the acceptance of compulsory execution on the same day (after that, the Defendant issued a promissory note with the same amount on October 12, 201 and September 5, 2014, and received a notarial deed from the Plaintiff, which seems to have been for the extension of the prescription period at the Plaintiff’s request, and M issued a promissory note with the face value of 70 million won at the Plaintiff on May 9, 2008, and received a notarial deed on the same day.
Each Promissory Notes issued by the Defendant and M have not been paid up to now.
(3) On May 12, 2008, the plaintiff and the defendant married couple evidence No. 13-1 of the sales contract of this case
2. The plaintiff submitted it at the trial.
The sales contract of this case was drafted. The sales contract of this case was written with the sales amount of KRW 1.7 billion, and the down payment of KRW 300 million is KRW 700 million in the intermediate payment of KRW 700 million in August 31, 2008, and the remainder of KRW 700 million in the intermediate payment of KRW 300 million in December 31, 2008, respectively (the Defendant couple purchased the entire apartment, not the purchase of the shares of this case, jointly
On the other hand, the sales contract of this case is notarized for the purpose of preserving the intermediate payment and the balance.