1. The Client’s Crisis

The client entered into a contract to sell real estate that he owned for a sale price of KRW 234,000,000. Under the contract, the buyer was to assume the existing mortgage-secured debt of KRW 148,000,000 and pay the remaining balance of KRW 86,000,000 by the agreed deadline.

The client duly completed the ownership transfer registration as promised and handed over possession on the same day. He fully performed all of his obligations as the seller. However, even after taking over the property and leasing it to a third party, the buyer failed to pay the remaining KRW 86,000,000 even after the payment due date had passed.

The buyer’s reason was this: “Since the real estate market price has fallen, please reduce the sale price to KRW 175,000,000.” The buyer’s husband sent a text message stating that, based on a market investigation, “villa transactions are not happening at all right now,” and that they would pay only the remaining difference. Although ownership and possession had already been transferred, the buyer was unilaterally demanding a price reduction and refusing to pay the balance.

2. Key Issue

The issue in this case was not merely the nonpayment of the balance, but securing enforceability.

The client had already filed a lawsuit on the merits against the buyer for payment of the purchase price. However, the only asset of the buyer that the client had identified was one apartment under the buyer’s name. If the buyer disposed of or encumbered that apartment while the main lawsuit was pending, there was a risk that even if the client won the case, he would be unable to actually recover the money. To prevent the worst-case scenario of obtaining a favorable judgment but recovering nothing, urgent provisional measures were needed to freeze the buyer’s assets before the merits judgment.

3. Preservation Strategy

Attorney Yoon Ji-sang, managing partner, and Attorney Shin Mi-jin devised a strategy of running the main lawsuit and the attachment request simultaneously.

The key to the attachment request was clearly substantiating the existence of the preserved claim and the necessity of preservation. The sales contract, the fact that the ownership transfer registration had been completed, and the fact that possession had been delivered were submitted as evidence to prove that the client had fully performed all obligations as the seller. Text messages sent by the buyer refusing to pay the balance were also secured as evidence, supporting the position that the buyer was not fulfilling contractual obligations.

As to the necessity of preservation, it was emphasized that the apartment owned by the buyer was effectively the only identifiable asset, and that if it were disposed of during the main lawsuit, enforcement would become difficult. It was also explained that the buyer had already shown an attitude of refusing payment while demanding a price reduction on the ground of falling market prices, making voluntary performance unlikely.

In response to the court’s order to provide security, a payment guarantee entrustment contract (guarantee insurance certificate) was promptly executed and submitted, resulting in an attachment order without procedural delay.

4. Outcome and Recovery

The court found the client’s application to be well-founded and granted attachment over the apartment owned by the buyer. An attachment order was issued for the claimed amount of KRW 86,000,000, legally preventing the buyer from disposing of or encumbering the apartment.

As a result, the client secured a foundation for certain compulsory enforcement in the event of success in the main lawsuit. This was a case in which the client, despite having transferred both ownership and possession and still not having received the balance, was able to use prompt attachment to freeze the buyer’s only asset and proceed with the merits case in a stable manner.

In real estate transactions, when the other party refuses to pay the balance or resists by demanding a price reduction, preserving the claim through attachment is one of the most effective initial response measures. If you are 고민ing about how to respond in a similar situation, we recommend consulting an expert, as the outcome may vary depending on the specific facts of the case.

Attorneys in charge: Managing Partner Yoon Ji-sang · Attorney Shin Mi-jin

To protect confidentiality, this case has been partially de-identified to the extent that it does not undermine the essence of the matter.