매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On February 12, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant B, an agent of Defendant A’s clan (hereinafter “Defendant clan”); and concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff to purchase KRW 52,537 square meters of forests and fields in Gyeyang-gun, Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “instant forest”) from Defendant clan for KRW 974,60,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).
B. The Plaintiff paid Defendant B the sum of KRW 175,00,000 for down payment of KRW 75,000,000 for the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant down payment”) and for consulting costs of KRW 175,00,000.
C. On August 7, 2015, the instant sales contract was rescinded under the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant clan. At the time, the Plaintiff agreed that the Defendant clan refund of KRW 20,000,000 among the down payment of KRW 75,000,000 and the consulting cost of KRW 120,000,000 (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and accordingly, the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant clan.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including each number if there is a number), the examination result of the plaintiff and defendant B, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. At the time of the cancellation of the agreement on the instant sales contract by the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff renounced the return of KRW 55,000,000 out of the down payment of KRW 75,00,000 upon the agreement in the instant case.
As above, the reason why the Plaintiff renounced the return of KRW 55,00,000 is that the Defendants believed that the amount of KRW 55,00,000 was required to move to a grave located in the forest of this case for the implementation of the instant sales contract, and the special terms and conditions of the instant sales contract stipulate that the Defendant clan shall move to a grave, as well as that it did not require KRW 55,00,000 to move to a grave.
Therefore, the agreement of this case, which is a compromise contract, is made by mistake, and on this ground, the plaintiff prepared a preparatory document dated September 12, 2016 of this case.