beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 영동지원 2018.11.02 2018가단4603

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant, setting the sales amount of KRW 43,500,000,000, for the land of KRW 607 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which is owned by the Defendant and the Defendant, (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. On June 1, 2018, the Defendant received the above sales price and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land in order to construct the building.

However, the land in this case exists without permission, and the area of the land does not exceed 607 square meters due to an unauthorized building, and the land in this case is not able to conduct a boundary survey as a cadastral non-conformity.

The plaintiff, even though the land of this case was in the above situation, was concealed, and sold the land of this case by deceiving the defendant to build a building on the land of this case. Thus, the plaintiff shall cancel the sales contract for the land of this case by serving the complaint of this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 43.5 million to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. As to whether the Defendant, by deceiving the Plaintiff, entered into a sales contract on the instant land, the health expenses, and the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff, are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant sold the instant land to the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the impossibility of surveying as a cadastral non-conformity with the land of this case, while concealing the fact that the instant land was located in the part of the instant land. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, an unauthorized building, which affected the instant land, exists on the ground adjacent to the instant land, and part of the instant land was invaded.