손해배상(기)
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. All appeals costs are borne by the Plaintiffs.
purport, purport, and.
Based on the facts, on March 26, 2010, Plaintiff B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the Seo-gu Daejeon apartment (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 811, Dong-dong 811, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
Plaintiff
B On July 23, 2015, on the same day, acquired the above right of lease from H, and entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on the same day, and entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the same day with the amount of KRW 187,470,000.
Plaintiff
C On June 18, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with respect to the instant apartment Nos. 815, 101, 815, and on November 2, 2015, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with respect to the instant apartment Nos. 1305, 1305, 101, and 139,000,000, with respect to the sales amount as to the instant apartment Nos. 101, 101, 201.
The head of Seo-gu Daejeon approved on May 9, 2016 the Defendant’s application for approval to convert the apartment of this case into parcelling-out on or around the same day. Of the instant apartment, the pre-sale price of a household with exclusive use area of 59.9078 square meters was set at KRW 108,814,00, and KRW 84.958 square meters, which is 152,540,000.
[Ground of recognition] A, Gap evidence 1-3 through 6, 8, Gap evidence 2-2, 2-3, Gap evidence 3-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 12, and 13-2, and plaintiffs Eul asserted the purport of the whole pleadings as the parties to the above 811, and plaintiff C was the lessee under the above 815, and around April 2015, since five years have passed since the mandatory lease period of the apartment of this case was the lessee under the above 815, the apartment of this case can be preferentially sold.
However, the Defendant: “If the instant apartment is sold to another rental business entity, it would be difficult for the Plaintiffs to maintain the lessee status. At present, it would be difficult for the lessee to sell the instant apartment at a low rate of 10%, and thus, it would be done by changing the ownership of the instant apartment to the sale in general around the end of 2015 when the Plaintiff purchased the instant apartment and then transferred the ownership of the name, such as the family.”