beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.06.19 2018가단30845

매매대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the premise facts: (a) the Plaintiff purchased from the defendant on November 3, 2017, the amount of KRW 58,000,000,000 (hereinafter “instant purchase contract”); (b) the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer of the said land on November 28, 2017 by paying the purchase price to the defendant in full; and (c) the actual area of the said land was 331 square meters.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant sales contract is a quantity-designated sale based on the size of the instant land (one square meter), and that the area of the instant land is less than 26 square meters in fact with the area of 331 square meters, and that the Defendant should return the purchase price corresponding to 26 square meters in size as above to the Plaintiff.

3. The "trade which designates the quantity" as stipulated in Article 574 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the parties set the price based on the volume at the time that the specific goods, which are the object of the sale, have a certain quantity. Thus, in the sale and purchase of land, even if an object is specified in accordance with the area on the registry, if the parties have assessed it as a whole even if it was specified in accordance with the area on the registry, and the area calculated by the area was merely a single standard, it cannot be said that it was a trade which designated the volume by which the parties have to specify the land and determine

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da65189 delivered on January 24, 2003, etc.). The sales contract (Evidence A1) of this case does not state any provision on the settlement of accounts in the event that the content or area of the price calculated (the unit price per area, etc.) according to the area is different from that of the sales contract of this case. The fact-finding confirmation (Evidence A4) submitted by the Plaintiff (the broker of the sales contract of this case) also states that the sales contract of this case has a proposal for the area of land.