매매계약취소에 따른 원상회복
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 2, 3, and 4:
On April 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the purchase price of KRW 180 million (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) at KRW 128,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant land”). On April 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant to purchase KRW 228,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant land”) prior to C during permanent residence (hereinafter “the instant land”), KRW 126,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant land”); ② the remainder on April 20, 2015; and KRW 130,000,000,000,000 for the remainder on April 20, 2015; and KRW 330,000,000,000 for each of the instant land. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 26320, Jun. 2, 2015>
B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 10 million on April 12, 2015, the intermediate payment of KRW 40 million on April 13, 2015, respectively.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) the usual market price of each of the instant lands was KRW 100,000,000; and (b) since each of the instant lands is attached, each of the instant lands was combined into one parcel, and said that one building can be constructed on that ground.
However, the market price of each of the instant lands is excessive to KRW 50,00,000, and all of the instant lands are far away, and the land between the first and second lands is so blind that no access can be made without passing through the said other person’s land due to the land of the other person, and each area of the instant land was small so that no use is possible.
If the plaintiff knew the above facts, he did not purchase each of the lands of this case or did not purchase it in KRW 100,000 per deliberation, and the sales contract of this case was concluded by the defendant's fraud, and it was revoked by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is the plaintiff's restitution.