계약금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the selective claim against the defendant B in the trial are all dismissed.
2...
1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Defendant B’s assertion against Defendant B was false in the course of the instant contract that the boiler was completed in the instant apartment, or did not notify the Plaintiff despite the existence of the duty of disclosure as to whether the boiler was installed in the instant apartment, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff by failing to notify it. The Plaintiff, thereby leading up to the conclusion of the instant contract.
The plaintiff either cancels the contract of this case by declaration of intention by fraud (Article 110 of the Civil Act), or cancels by declaration of intention by mistake (Article 109 of the Civil Act). The defendant B is obligated to return to the plaintiff the down payment 28 million won which he received by mistake as unjust enrichment.
B) Defendant B, like the above A, deceiving the Plaintiff and receiving the down payment from the Plaintiff constitutes a tort, and Defendant B is obligated to compensate for the amount equivalent to KRW 28 million already received as the Plaintiff’s damages.
2) Defendant C’s assertion against Defendant C was jointly with Defendant B, and did not verify and explain the Plaintiff’s wrong information as to whether the pipeline works were performed by Defendant B, and thus, the practicing licensed real estate agent under Article 30(1) of the Licensed Real Estate Agents Act is liable to compensate for the damage to property of the parties to the transaction by intention or negligence when the act of brokerage causes damage to the party to the transaction.
(2) The Plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff.
Therefore, Defendant C and each other must pay the above twenty-eight million won to Defendant C and each other.
B. 1) Determination as to whether the Defendants deceptioned the Plaintiff is the Defendant B’s expression of intent by fraud, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment based on the cancellation of the instant contract.