beta
(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.10.19 2017가합10337

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: non-strifeed facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

A. On January 9, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to purchase each building and unauthorized building listed in [Attachment List Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”) as well as each building and unauthorized building listed in [Attachment List Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant unauthorized building”; each real estate listed in the [Attachment List Nos. 2 and each real estate listed “instant real estate”) with KRW 590 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”); and Defendant C arranged the instant sales contract.

B. The Plaintiff paid the price under the instant sales contract to Defendant B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 25, 2016 for each real estate listed in the separate sheet among the instant real estate.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendants deceiving the Plaintiff to conclude the instant sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff, on the ground that: (a) the nine buildings among the instant real estate were unregistered buildings; (b) it was impossible to execute penture business; and (c) the sales amount was KRW 300,000 per square meter; (b) it was possible to add a certain amount of income by operating pension business in the instant real estate; and (c) the sales price was more than one million per square meter.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the instant sales contract on the grounds of deception by the Defendants. As such, Defendant B is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the sales price of the instant sales contract.

(2) The Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract on the premise that the instant real estate can be run a pentry business. After becoming aware of the existence of a building without permission among the instant real estate, the Plaintiff resisted the Defendants. The Defendants promised to obtain permission for the said nine buildings without permission from the Plaintiff within two months after concluding the instant sales contract.

However, the Defendants did not perform their duties and did not perform their duties.