beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가합41213

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract, etc.) from Nonparty C on the land and its ground (hereinafter “instant cartel”) of the Busan Jin-gu, Busan, for the purpose of running the telecom business.

A) The sales contract to purchase the purchase price of KRW 930,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) is a sales contract to purchase KRW 930,000.

(2) On the same day, the term “the instant sales contract is null and void without penalty if the instant sales contract was concluded, but it is impossible to install a parking lot or elevator after the diagnosis of structural safety,” and the term “the instant sales contract after the lapse of August 18, 2014, will proceed according to the contract” (hereinafter referred to as “the term “the terms of the instant purchase”).

(2) On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the instant sales contract.

B. On September 1, 2014, the owner of the instant design contract entered into, etc., on September 1, 2014, the force of the design space in the non-party corporation (hereinafter “space force”).

(2) The design standard contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant design contract”) entered into by the designer, the Defendant, the service cost of KRW 5,000,000 (excluding value-added tax), and the contract entered into by the said contract shall be referred to as the “instant design contract.”

On September 3, 2014, the spatial power paid KRW 2,750,00 (including value-added tax) to the Defendant on September 3, 2014. (2) The Defendant applied for a building permit on behalf of the Plaintiff on the basis of the design drawings prepared for installing the elevator with respect to the instant apartment outside of the existing building on the basis of the design drawings prepared for installing the elevator outside of the existing building, but withdrawn on September 19, 2014.

3. Since then, the defendant newly installs the elevator in the inside of the existing building with respect to the franchise of this case.