beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.04 2017가합534028

청구이의

Text

1. The Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2030767 (Main Office), 2014Na2031392 (Counterclaim) against the Defendants’ Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. 1) The Plaintiff entered into the instant apartment sale contract, etc.) on the ground of the Incheon Free Economic Zone H, the scale of 1,628 units of I apartment on the ground of the Incheon Free Economic Zone H (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

A) A new construction project is conducted at the same time as a new construction project and the sales contract for the apartment of this case is concluded between the Plaintiff and the buyer (the specific details of the sales contract by the Defendant are as follows: the “sale contract date, club number, and sale price” of the damage claim list in attached Form 1.

The sales contract of each of the instant cases is collectively referred to as "each of the instant sales contracts."

(2) The remaining Defendants except Defendant C and D entered into an option construction contract with the Plaintiff in addition to the instant sales contract, and the Defendants did not pay the remainder of the sales price and the options construction price to the Plaintiff by December 31, 2012, which is the expiration date of the occupancy designation period.

3) The Defendants received a loan from a foreign exchange bank for intermediate payment of the instant sales contract, but did not repay the said loan within the time limit. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff subrogated to the said bank for the principal and interest of the loan. (B) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s cancellation of sales contract due to fraud or mistake, alteration of circumstances, or rescission of sales contract due to impossibility of performance in connection with the instant apartment sales advertisement. (3) The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s cancellation of sales contract due to fraud or mistake, alteration of circumstances, or execution of the sales contract, etc.

(Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap97838 Decided November 20, 2013) The appellate court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendants on the compensation amounting to 5% of the sales price and the damages for delay from the date of conclusion of each sales contract (the specific amount by the Defendant) as the damages under Article 10(1) of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising.