beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가단144363

계약금반환청구

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Claims, etc. concerning the cause of claims;

A. The plaintiff asserts as the cause of the claim of this case that the sales contract of this case was cancelled or cancelled, and therefore, the defendant asserts that it is obligated to return the down payment of 103,159,500 won and damages for delay that he received to the plaintiff as the cause of the claim of this case.

B. Of the above allegations, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on March 31, 2016 by setting the sales price of the instant real estate at KRW 515,797,500 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid the Defendant the down payment at KRW 103,159,50, does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination

A. 1) The cancellation of the sales contract by fraud is a deception if the specific facts about the important matters of the transaction are falsely notified in the advertisement of the product in a manner to the point of criticism in light of the duty of good faith. However, even if the director of a certain size in the advertisement is involved in the advertisement, it cannot be said to be a deception if it is possible to be done in light of general commercial practices and the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da55601, 55618, May 29, 2001). 2) According to the respective descriptions and images of Gap's 2, 3, and Eul's 1 through 3, it is acknowledged that there is a picture and indication that the real estate site corresponding to the real estate of this case can be understood as a prospective hotel new construction site under the position survey report.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant explained or confirmed five hotels in the promotional process prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract or the site conditions of the instant real estate in the process of concluding the contract, as alleged above, to the plaintiff as to the location conditions of the instant real estate in the real estate site, and it is insufficient to recognize them only with the entries and images of the said sales advertisement and the like.