손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 106,108,513, respectively, and KRW 20% per annum from November 11, 2014 to the date of full payment.
1. On November 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendants to purchase 1,881 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) out of 2,040 square meters (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) among the 2,040 square meters in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, the Defendants shared 1/2 shares. On September 17, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant real estate on the grounds of sale as of November 26, 2012.
The Plaintiff discovered that a mixture of construction waste was buried in the underground of the instant real estate on July 22, 2013 while entering into a construction contract with E (F) for the construction of a building on the ground of the instant real estate.
From August 18, 2013 to August 29, 2013, the Plaintiff collected, removed, and disposed of 1,988.11 tons of the wastes buried under the ground of the instant real estate, and 2,080 tons of household wastes still remain in the instant real estate.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute; entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including each number in the case where there are separate numbers); the result of witness G’s testimony; the result of appraiser H’s appraisal; the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The issue of whether there is a defect in the subject matter of a sale or purchase liability shall be determined by considering all the circumstances at the time of sale or purchase, including the course and purpose of the sale or purchase. On the other hand, in a case where a large quantity of wastes are buried in a site subject to the sale or purchase, and thus it is impossible to conduct an ordinary construction act without imposing the waste disposal costs, barring any special circumstance, such land constitutes “when there is a defect in the subject matter of sale or purchase” under Article 580 of the Civil Act because it does not have the quality or condition as a site of a building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da51586, Jul. 22, 2004). It is known in full view of the above basic