소유권이전등기
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant, including the plaintiff's claim extended by this court, is as follows.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have mistakend or confused the above H as the J of the instant building at the time of entering into a contract for the supply of neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract for the sale of buildings”) with the Defendant under the terms that the Plaintiff would be supplied with Goyang-si’s ground officetels and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”). As such, the mistake alleged by the Plaintiff is merely a mistake of motive.
However, since the Plaintiff’s motive mistake such as accessibility to commercial buildings as to the above H became the content of a legal act, the Plaintiff cannot cancel the sales contract of this case for this reason.
B. Even if the Plaintiff made an error in the subject matter of the instant sales contract as the building J, the Plaintiff cannot cancel the instant sales contract as it was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.
C. Since E is not an employee of the defendant, and since E is fully responsible for the sale of the building of this case, the sales agent of the building of this case, D (hereinafter referred to as "D"), even if E has mistakenly explained to the plaintiff the object of the sale contract of this case, the defendant is not liable for the employer.
[Defendant asserted that even if the sales contract in this case was cancelled because the Defendant subrogated to the principal and interest of the intermediate payment out of the sales contract in this case, the Defendant did not have an obligation to return the amount equivalent to the intermediate payment to the Plaintiff. However, since the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s intermediate payment payment claim and reduced the purport of the claim by subrogation, this part of the claim is not examined further.
2. The reasons why this Court should state this part of the basic facts are as follows: “Defendant C Co., Ltd.” is used as “Defendant”; “Defendant C Co., Ltd., Defendant D and Defendant E” are deleted, and all of them are below the part.