매매대금
1. Among the lawsuits for retrial of this case, the grounds for retrial under Article 451(1)6 and 9 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be dismissed.
2. This.
1. Following the conclusion of the judgment subject to a retrial is apparent or obvious in records in this court.
Plaintiff
G, H, and B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are buyers who purchase 6 underground floors above 4 lots, such as Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, and 18 Z buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”), each of the five floors, 1 unit below 5 floors, 1 unit below 5 floors, and 2 unit below 1st ground among the buildings sold by the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the return of the down payment, intermediate payment, penalty, and development cost (Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap11283) by asserting that the sales contract and development cost agreement have been cancelled or cancelled.
On August 17, 2007, the first instance court rendered a judgment to dismiss all the plaintiffs' claims.
B. The Plaintiffs appealed with Seoul High Court No. 2007Na97879, and added a claim for the payment of liquidated damages, development costs, and damages for delay from the date following the scheduled date of occupancy in the preliminary case.
In the above lawsuit, on May 12, 2009, the appellate court sentenced the instant judgment subject to a retrial that “each of the conjunctive claims added at the plaintiff’s appeal and the appellate trial are dismissed,” and the plaintiffs’ attorney was served with the original copy of the instant judgment subject to a retrial on May 20, 2009.
C. Plaintiff B appealed and appealed by Supreme Court Decision 2009Da46376, but on August 20, 2009, the final appeal was dismissed by a judgment of non-judicial failure, and on August 31, 2009, the judgment subject to final judgment became final and conclusive by serving the Plaintiff B on August 31, 2009.
(Plaintiff G and H did not appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is). 2. Dissenting and determining the grounds for a retrial
A. Whether there exists a ground for a retrial under the main sentence of Article 451(1)3 of the Civil Procedure Act, and there is a difference between the attorney-at-law and the AV, the representative director, without the consent of the plaintiffs during the litigation of the case subject to retrial by the attorney-at-law and the AU, the representative director.