|
|
- Written by Salomone Donghwa Shin / International Legal Research Institute. www.ilri.co.kr
Complaint for Specific Performance or Damages Based on a Contract to Convey Real Property
Form Number: Pro Se 9
Category: Civil Pro Se Forms
Effective on December 1, 2016
2022년 8월 1일 현재 미국 법원에서 사용중인 민사소송 Complaint for Specific Performance or Damages Based on a Contract to Convey Real Property 서식입니다.
부동산양도계약이행명령또는손해배상청구 Complaint for Specific Performance or Damages Based on a Contract to Convey Real Property 소송은 상대방이 거래를완료하도록 to complete the transaction 법원의명령을구하거나 either by obtaining a court order 부동산양도계약 a contract to convey real property 을 강제이행하려는 seeking to enforce 당사자가 하는 소송입니다.
이것은 특정이행 specific performance 또는 계약위반 breach of contract 에 대한 금전적손해 monetary damages 에 대해서 배상을 목적으로 합니다.
소장의 내용은 원고가 부동산 매매를 위해 유효하고 구속력 있는 계약을 체결하고 계약상의 모든 의무를 이행했지만 피고가 거래를 완료하지 않아서 계약의 특정이행 specific performance 을 요구하는 내용으로 작성합니다.
이에 법원은 피고에게 계약대로 양도를 완료하도록 명하거나 계약위반에 대해 금전적손해배상 monetary damages 을 명할 수 있습니다.
또한 특정이행구제책 the specific performance remedy 이라고 있는데 이것은 부동산 거래에서 금전적손해 monetary damages 배상에 있어서 부적절 inadequate 하거나, 실행불가 impracticable 하고, 이행의이점 benefits of performance 이 이행비용을크게초과 greatly exceed the costs 하는 경우 즉 소송의 실익이 있는 경우에만 허용됩니다.
다음은 계약위반에서 구제된 사례들입니다.
1. Raffles v. Wichelhaus(1864): 이것은 미국이 아닌 영국 Exchequer Chamber 법원에 제기된 사건으로 이 사건에서 양 당사자는 Peerless 라는 이름의 선박으로 봄베이에서 리버풀까지에 선적할 목화판매계약을 체결했지만 해당 선박과 동일한 이름의 배가 두 척이 있었고 각 당사자는 다른 선박으로 알아서 법원은 당사자들이 주요한 이해가 서로 달랐기 때문에 계약이 유효하지 않다 no valid contract 고 판결. 이 사건은 계약의기본조건에쌍방착오로인하여계약이무효가될수있다는원칙을확립하였고
,마음합치되지않은점도중요하게봤다는점에서 의의 is significant because it established the principle that a contract can be void for mistake if both parties are mistaken about a fundamental term of the contract, and there is no meeting of the minds 가 있고, 또한 당사자간의혼란과오해를피하기위해모호하지않은명확한계약언어의중요성 also illustrates the importance of clear and unambiguous contract language to avoid confusion and misunderstanding between the parties 을 보여줌.
2. Wood v. Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon (1917): 이 사건은 계약의 묵시적약속 implied promises 을 다루는 미국 계약법의 획기적인 사건으로, Wood 씨는 Lady Duff-Gordon 사의 패션디자인을 마케팅하고 홍보하여 판매수익을 배분하는 계약후 당사자간 분쟁에서 뉴욕주법원 New York state court 은 신의성실 good faith 과 공정거래 fair dealing 에 대한 묵시적계약 the implied covenant 이 위반되었으면 had breached 손해배상을 받을 권리가 있다고 판결함. 이 사건은 계약에서 in contracts 묵시적약속의원칙을확립 it established the principle of implied promises 하고 약속이행되기 위해서명시적일필요가없음 a promise need not be express in order to be enforceable 을 인식 recognized 했기 때문에 중요하며, 또한 당사자간의혼란과오해를피하기위해명확하고모호하지않은계약언어의중요성 also illustrates the importance of clear and unambiguous contract language to avoid confusion and misunderstanding between the parties 을 보여줌.
3. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. v. Majestic Pictures Corp.(1942): 이 사건은 미국 항소법원 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 에서 내린 판결로, 양 당사자는 영화대본판매계약 contract for the sale of a movie script 을 체결했지만 판매자가 나중에 대본을 다른 당사자에게 판매한 것에 대해서 항소법원은 in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 그 대본이 유일하기에 금전적배상으로는적절한구제책이되지못할것 monetary damages would not provide an adequate remedy 이라고 판단하여 구매자가 계약의 특정이행 specific performance 을 할 자격이 있다고 판결함. 이 사건은 저작권법 copyright law 과 반독점법 antitrust law 관련 문제로 영화산업에서 결합계약 tying arrangements 의 개념을분석한것으로유명 is notable for its analysis of the concept of 하며, 반독점법 antitrust law 및 지적재산권법 intellectual property law 에 관한 후속소송및학술연구에서널리인용 has been widely cited in subsequent litigation and scholarship 됨.
다음은 미국 대법원의 부동산매도계약이행명령또는손해배상청구 Complaint for Specific Performance or Damages Based on a Contract to Convey Real Property 관련 판례입니다.
1. United States v. Cors (1943). 이 사건은 플로리다주의 에버글레이즈 국립공원(Everglades National Park)이 된 토지 매입 계약을 둘러싼 United States 와 Cors 가족 간의 분쟁으로, 1922년 Cors 가족은 제3자에게 토지를 팔았고 제3자는 나중에 미국에 팔았는데 Cors 가족은 정부가계약에따른특정의무를이행하지않았기때문에매각이무효라고주장 claimed that the sale was invalid because the government had not fulfilled certain obligations under the contract 했음. 특히정부가땅에적절한배수를하지못했고약속한 대로운하를건설하지않았다 specifically, the government had failed to provide adequate drainage for the land and had not constructed a canal as promised 는 주장에 대해 대법원은 궁극적으로 정부가적절한배수와운하를건설하지않은것은계약에서정부가하도록요구하지않
았기때문에계약위반을구성하지않는다 the government's failure to provide adequate drainage and construct a canal did not constitute a breach of contract because the contract did not require the government to provide specific drainage or construct a specific cana 고 판결하고, 대신,정부가"배수시설"을제공하고"필요한운하"를건설해서 토지가농업용으로적합하도록 instead, the contract required only that the government provide "drainage facilities" and construct "necessary canals" to ensure that the land was suitable for agricultural use 하게 명령함. 이 판례는 모든의무가명확히명시되고양당사자가잘이해하도록계약서를신중하게작성 the importance of carefully drafting contracts to ensure that all obligations are clearly stated and understood by both parties 하여서, 일방적으로의도한주관적해석이아니라평이한언어로상대의도에따라계약을해석
하는중요성을강조highlights the importance of interpreting contracts based on their plain language and the intentions of the parties, rather than subjective interpretations of what the parties might have intended 합니다.
2. Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. River Terminals Corp. (1943). 이 사건은 미시시피 강에 있는 창고임대차계약 a contract for the lease of a warehouse 분쟁으로, 임대차계약하에 under the lease, River Terminals Corp. 사는 창고를수리하고양호한상태로유지해야했으나 was required to maintain the warehouse and keep it in good repair 그 창고가 1927년과 1928년에 홍수로피해를입은 was damaged by a flood 후 필요한수리를하지않았고 did not make the necessary repairs 그래서 Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. 사가 결국손해배상소송을제기 as a result sued for damages 했음. 이에 대법원은 피해가 창고 사용손실로제한되어야 the damages should be limited to the loss of use 하는지 아니면 Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. 사가 전체임차권손실에대한손해배상을받을자격이있는지 was entitled to damages for the loss of the entire leasehold interest 여부를 결정해야 했고, 대법원은 궁극적으로 River Terminals Corp. 사가 필요한수리를하지않은것이임대차계약위반에해당 failure to make the necessary repairs amounted to a breach of the lease 하기 때문에 Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. 사가 전체임차권손실에대해손해배상을받을자격이있다 was entitled to damages for the loss of the entire leasehold interest 고 판결.
3. Peevyhouse v. Garland Coal & Mining Co. (1962). 이 사건에서 대법원은 임차인이 석탄을 채굴 후 토지표면을복원 restore the surface of the land 하도록 요구하는 석탄채굴임대조항 a provision in a coal mining lease requiring 에 있어서 복원이행에는 구제를 하지 않고 손해배상만 구제를 함. 대법원은 이행비용이 임대인의 이익 보다 더 많이 들 것이므로 특정이행구제책은 이행의 이익이 이행 비용을 크게 초과하는 경우에만 구제된다고 판결.
4. Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.(1968). 이 사건은 제화기계임대 the lease of shoe-making machinery 에 대한 계약과 관련으로, United Shoe Machinery Corp. 사는 기계에대한독점권을가지고있었고 had a monopoly on the machinery 거기에 대해 Hanover Shoe, Inc. 사는 기계에과도한임대료를청구했다고주장 claimed that it had been charged excessive rent for the machines 하였음. 이에 대법원은 United Shoe Machinery Corp. 사가 과도한임대료를부과함으로써반독점법을위반 had violated the antitrust laws by charging excessive rent 했으며 Hanover Shoe 사는 3배의손해배상을받을자격이있다 was entitled to treble damages 고 판결.
5. East Providence Credit Union v. Geremia (1997). 이 사건에서 대법원은 매도인이 양호하고시장성이있는소유권 good and marketable title 을 양도하기로 하는 부동산매매계약 조항을 볼 때 거래를 완료하기 위해 매수인은 의무를 다했으나 매도인이 소유권을 이전할 수 없을 때 매수인이 계약을 취소할 자격이 있다는 내용을 가지고 있고, 또한 매수인은 지불한 보증금 및 계약과 관련된 사용비용을 매도인에게 청구할 수 있다고 판결.
6. United States v. Locke (2000). 이 사건은 정부가허가토지에수자원보호권을사용하는 the government's use of a water rights reservation in a land grant 것에 대한 연방정부 federal government 와 토지소유자 landowner 간의 분쟁에서 토지소유자 landowner 는 자신의재산에대한위헌적취득 the reservation was an unconstitutional taking of his property 이라고 주장했고, 연방정부 federal government 는 헌법의재산조항에따른정당한권한행사 the reservation was a valid exercise of its power under the Property Clause of the Constitution 라고 주장함. 이에 대법원은 보호권은 정부권한의유효한행사 reservation was a valid exercise of the government's power 이며, 토지소유자의재산을취득한것이이아니다 did not constitute a taking of the landowner's property 고 판결.
각 국가의 법원들은 고유의 소송 서식을 사용하므로 더 추가되는 내용들이 있지만 기본적으로 요구하는 내용은 크게 다르지 않아서 다른 국가와 비슷한 사건일 경우 본 내용을 참고하시기 바랍니다.
소송이 필요한 국가의 현지 변호사와 상담이나 번역과 통역을 원하시면 이메일 info@ilri.co.kr 로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.
Pro Se 9 (Rev. 12/16) Complaint to Require Performance of a Contract to Convey Real Property
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
__________ District of __________
__________ Division
Case No.
(to be filled in by the Clerk’s Office)
Plaintiff(s)
(Write the full name of each plaintiff who is filing this complaint.
If the names of all the plaintiffs cannot fit in the space above,
please write “see attached” in the space and attach an additional
page with the full list of names.)
-v-
Defendant(s)
(Write the full name of each defendant who is being sued. If the
names of all the defendants cannot fit in the space above, please
write “see attached” in the space and attach an additional page
with the full list of names.)
COMPLAINT TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT TO CONVEY REAL PROPERTY
(28 U.S.C. § 1332; Diversity of Citizenship)
I. The Parties to This Complaint
A. The Plaintiff(s)
Provide the information below for each plaintiff named in the complaint. Attach additional pages if needed.
Name
Street Address
City and County
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
B. The Defendant(s)
Provide the information below for each defendant named in the complaint, whether the defendant is an individual, a government agency, an organization, or a corporation. For an individual defendant, include the person's job or title (if known). Attach additional pages if needed.
Page 1 of 7
Defendant No. 1
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Street Address
City and County
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (if known)
Defendant No. 2
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Street Address
City and County
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (if known)
Defendant No. 3
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Street Address
City and County
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (if known)
Defendant No. 4
Name
Job or Title (if known)
Street Address
City and County
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address (if known)
Page 2 of 7
II. Basis for Jurisdiction
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction (limited power). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal courts may hear cases in which a citizen of one State sues a citizen of another State or nation and the amount at stake is more than $75,000. In that kind of case, called a diversity of citizenship case, no defendant may be a citizen of the same State as any plaintiff. Explain how these jurisdictional requirements have been met.
A. The Plaintiff(s)
1. If the plaintiff is an individual
The plaintiff, (name) __________________________________________is a citizen of the
State of (name) __________________________________________ .
2. If the plaintiff is a corporation
The plaintiff, (name) __________________________________________ , is incorporated
under the laws of the State of (name ) __________________________________________ , and
has its principal place of business in the State of (name) _______________________________ .
(If more than one plaintiff is named in the complaint, attach an additional page providing the same information for each additional plaintiff.)
B. The Defendant(s)
1. If the defendant is an individual
The defendant, (name) __________________________________________ , is a citizen of the
State of (name) __________________________________________ . Or is a citizen of (foreign nation) __________________________________________ .
2 If the defendant is a corporation
The defendant, (name) __________________________________________ , is incorporated under
the laws of the State of (name) __________________________________________ , and has its principal place of business in the State of (name) _______________________________________ .
Or is incorporated under the laws of (foreign nation) __________________________________________,
and has its principal place of business in (name) __________________________________________ .
(If more than one defendant is named in the complaint, attach an additional page providing the same information for each additional defendant.)
Page 3 of 7
C. The Amount in Controversy
The amount in controversy–the amount the plaintiff claims the defendant owes or the amount at stake–is more than $75,000, not counting interest and costs of court, because (explain):
__________________________________________
III. Statement of Claim
A. Describe the real property owned by the defendant(s) that is the subject of this complaint. Include the address or location of the property.
__________________________________________
B. Describe the terms of the contract you entered into with the defendant(s) to purchase the real property at issue. Attach the contract as an exhibit.
1. When did you enter into the contract with the defendant(s)?
__________________________________________
2. What is the purchase price you agreed to pay?
__________________________________________
3. Describe your obligations under the contract. Include any terms regarding required deposits.
__________________________________________
4. Describe the defendant(s)’ obligations under the contract, including the obligation to convey thereal property at issue.
__________________________________________
Page 4 of 7
C. Describe when and how you complied with, or attempted to comply with, all of your obligations under the contract, including payment of the purchase price. If you have not complied with all of your obligations under the contract, explain how you are ready and able to comply with those obligations.
__________________________________________
D. Describe when and how you requested that the defendant(s) convey the real property at issue and when and how the defendant(s) refused to do so. Attach copies of any correspondence with the defendant(s).
__________________________________________
IV. Relief
What is your requested form of relief? (check all that apply)
ㅁ Specific performance of the contract. (Explain why specific performance is the only adequate remedy and why damages would not suffice.)
__________________________________________
ㅁ Damages sustained as a result of the defendant(s)’ refusal to comply with the contract. (Describe the damages you are requesting.)
__________________________________________
Page 5 of 7
ㅁ If specific performance cannot be granted, damages in the amount of $
__________________________________________
(Describe the damages you are requesting.)
ㅁ Other relief.
__________________________________________
V. Certification and Closing
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, by signing below, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief that this complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11.
A. For Parties Without an Attorney
I agree to provide the Clerk’s Office with any changes to my address where case–related papers may be served. I understand that my failure to keep a current address on file with the Clerk’s Office may result in the dismissal of my case.
Date of signing: __________________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff ______________________________________
Printed Name of Plaintiff ______________________________________
B. For Attorneys
Date of signing: __________________________________________
Page 6 of 7
Signature of Attorney
Printed Name of Attorney
Bar Number
Name of Law Firm
Street Address
State and Zip Code
Telephone Number
E-mail Address
Page 7 of 7
국제법 전문가 그룹 - 국제법률연구원
Highly specialized in international law ㅡ International Legal Research Institute
Email 📮 info@ilri.co.kr Website 🌎 www.ilri.co.kr
📞 [Korea 82] (0)507-1350-0621, (0)2-557-3476 📱 (0)10-5295-0621
(Free E-mail Consultation: Please send your inquiry to info@ilri.co.kr for consultation with lawyers in different time zone countries.)
Law Dept. (0)507-1351-0621 law@ilri.co.kr | Education Dept. (0)507-1352-0621 education@ilri.co.kr | Finance Dept. (0)507-1353-0621 finance@ilri.co.kr | Administration Dept. administration@ilri.co.kr | Press Dept. press@ilri.co.kr
#국제법 #국제계약 #국제법률연구원 #신동화 #International Law #ilri #ILRI #International Legal Research Institute #ilri.co.kr
|
|
|
)
)
)
)
