분양대금반환
1. The grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)7 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act are dismissed among the lawsuits for retrial of this case.
2. This.
1. The following facts, which became final and conclusive in the judgment subject to a retrial, are apparent or apparent in records.
The Plaintiff and the designated parties are the buyers who sell each unit of 150, 136, and 133 units among the 6th above ground and the N of 18th above ground (hereinafter “instant building”) on the 4th above ground, such as Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, and the 18th above ground that the Defendant sold.
The plaintiff and the designated parties asserted that the sales contract was cancelled or cancelled against the defendant and filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the sale price at the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap109839.
The plaintiff and the designated parties have claimed the sale price, penalty, development cost and its delayed payment already paid due to the cancellation of the contract or the cancellation of the contract by default, and the sale price already paid due to the cancellation of the conjunctive mistake, development cost and its delayed payment due to the cancellation of the contract.
On November 15, 2007, the court of first instance rendered a ruling to dismiss all the claims of the plaintiff and the designated parties.
The plaintiff and the designated parties appealed as Seoul High Court 2007Na100898.
In addition to the main claim and the conjunctive claim made in the first instance trial, the plaintiff and the designated parties sought the sale price, penalty, development cost and damages for delay already paid due to the cancellation of the contract, the cancellation of the contract due to default, or the cancellation due to fraudulent mistake, and added the claim for the delayed payment, the development cost and the damages for delay from the day following the scheduled date of the preliminary entry.
On May 12, 2009, the appellate court rendered a judgment subject to a retrial that “the plaintiff and the designated parties dismiss each of the preliminary claims extended in the appeal and the trial, and the preliminary claims added in the trial.”
On May 20, 2009, the Plaintiff and the designated parties were served with the original copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial.
The plaintiff and the designated parties appealed to Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47715.