계약금반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 28, 2014, Defendant B, a licensed real estate agent, entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on sale of KRW 270,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) of KRW 175,000,000,000,000,000 for the land of Seocheon-si E (Road Name Address: Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si) (F), which was designated as a “D Improvement Zone” under the Act on the Maintenance and Improvement of Urban Areas and Dwelling Conditions for Residents (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant sales contract includes the following contents.
Article 6 (Non-performance of Obligations and Compensation for Damages) Where a seller or a buyer has a default on this contract, the other party may demand in writing the person who has defaulted on the contract to perform the contract, and cancel this contract, and the other party may claim damages arising from the cancellation of contract to the other party, and the contract deposit shall be
B. The instant land is a road adjacent to G, which is a road owned by the Gu, and is a road connected to H 154 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”).
C. Defendant C is a member of the mutual aid association of the Korea Licensed Real Estate Agents Association (the mutual aid amount of KRW 100 million, and the period of mutual aid from January 10, 2014 to January 9, 2015).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1, Defendant B, the seller at the time of the instant sales contract, did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant road necessary for the Plaintiff’s entry into the instant land and its ground was owned by another person, and thus, constitutes a case where “the Plaintiff has no servitude to exist for real estate which was the subject of sale.”