분양대금 반환 등
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except that part of the reasons for the judgment of the first instance as stated below "paragraph 2" (Provided, That the part corresponding to the joint plaintiffs of the first instance court other than the plaintiff is excluded) and it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be dried;
A. Article 18 of the first instance court’s decision No. 9 provides that “The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff A alone is sufficient to consider all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to this court and the circumstances surrounding the assertion.”
B. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance that "this part of the plaintiff A's argument is without merit. Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's argument is without merit (In addition, the plaintiff exclusively occupied the part outside the boundary of the commercial building of this case to be used as a Guate commercial building by the defendant, and it is argued that the plaintiff, in the case of the purchase of the above store, exclusively occupied the entire space and used as a Guate commercial building, and concluded the sales contract of this case with the belief that the sales contract of this case was made. However, in light of the various circumstances as seen earlier, the whole evidence submitted by the plaintiff up to this court is insufficient to recognize that the defendant exclusively occupied the part of the above site to the outside part of the boundary of the commercial building of this case to be used as a Guate commercial building, and there is no evidence to recognize it differently)."
C. Therefore, even if the defendant did not directly notify the plaintiff A of the specific circumstances, the part of the 13th judgment of the first instance court, which "it cannot be deemed that the defendant violated the duty of disclosure."