분양대금반환등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. Basic facts and
2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the gist of the plaintiffs’ assertion is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
3. Determination on this safety defense
A. According to the loan business agreement concluded between the Defendants, the key points of this safety defense are as follows: (a) the Plaintiffs asserted that when the sales contract of this case was cancelled, the obligation to return the portion of the loan paid as the loan out of the sales price did not belong to the Plaintiffs; and (b) the Plaintiffs’ non-existence of the loan obligation against U.S.
In this regard, Defendant U asserts that the issue of whether the contract for the sale of this case is cancelled or not is a dispute existing between the plaintiffs, Defendant S and T, and that it is difficult to see that the legal status of the plaintiffs is unstable in relation to the defendant U due to such a dispute, and that the lawsuit for the confirmation of the existence of the obligation of this case is unlawful
B. 1) Determination 1) The lawsuit for confirmation requires the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when the judgment for confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da281159, Mar. 14, 2019). 2) In principle, the issue of whether each of the instant sales contracts should be concluded and cancelled by fraud or mistake is related to the dispute between the Plaintiffs, Defendant S, and T in principle.
However, as seen earlier, the obligor is not the Defendant S et al., but the Plaintiffs under the loan contract related to each of the instant sales contracts. As such, it can be seen that the Plaintiffs are liable to repay their obligations. Defendant U is liable to pay the down payment to Defendant S et al., even if Defendant S et al. paid the down payment to Defendant U, it is first appropriated for the