매매대금
1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the appointed parties D respectively are 49,300 won and each of the said amounts.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 27, 2015, Plaintiff and Appointers D (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) decided to sell KRW 377,000,000 of the purchase price under the Plaintiff’s Co-ownership (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant for KRW 377,00,000, but the down payment of KRW 37,000,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 15,000 on March 20, 2015; KRW 185,00,000 on April 15, 2015, the remainder payment of KRW 185,00,00 on March 20, 2015; and the instant apartment was concluded with the Defendant to deliver the instant apartment to the Defendant on April 15, 2015, the remainder date of the contract.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The description of confirmation of the object of brokerage attached at the time of the preparation of the instant sales contract is written as follows: (a) it is written that the seller’s confirmation of the leakage of the wall was nonexistent along with the phrase “assumed by the seller.”
B. The Defendant paid the Plaintiffs KRW 37,00,000 as down payment according to the instant sales contract. On March 19, 2015, the Defendant visited the instant apartment under the condition that the Defendant paid KRW 150,000,000 as the intermediate payment, and found that there was a water leakage phenomenon on the part of the inner ceiling near the balcony and balcony.
Accordingly, on April 10, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs that the remainder cannot be paid until resolving the leakage problem when raising a problem of leakage of the instant apartment and requesting the inspection of defects.
C. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant, in the presence of a licensed real estate agent on April 16, 2015, paid to the Plaintiffs the remainder of KRW 185,00,000 under the instant sales contract, and implemented the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, and confirmed that the part of the balcony of the instant apartment was the buyer, and agreed to the construction of the Plaintiffs.
In the above circumstances, the defendant originally decided to enter the apartment of this case on April 15, 2015.