손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 14,071,053 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from December 5, 2013 to May 16, 2014.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On August 14, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant, Seo-gu, Daejeon-gu, with respect to the purchase price of KRW 292 million (hereinafter “instant land”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 13, 2013, following the full payment of the said price.
B. After that, the Plaintiff discovered construction wastes, such as waste soil and stones, waste asphalt containers, and concrete materials buried at 150 cm below the upper limit of 30 cm below the ground of the instant land while performing construction work to construct a new building on the instant land around the end of October, 2013.
C. On November 1, 2013, the Plaintiff reported a construction waste disposal plan to the Seo-gu Daejeon District Office, and requested construction waste disposal to a neighboring environment corporation, and paid KRW 20,101,505 as construction waste disposal costs.
[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap's evidence 1 to 6 (including additional numbers), witness C's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that construction wastes were buried in the instant land at the time of concluding the sales contract, and the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is liable for damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Plaintiff’s breach of duty of disclosure in the sales contract. However, there is no evidence to support that the Defendant knew or could have known that construction wastes were buried in the instant land under the ground at the time of concluding the sales contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
B. As above, construction wastes, such as waste soil and rocks, waste asphalts, and concrete materials, are buried on the instant land that requires a large amount of disposal costs as above, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the sale of land does not have any condition that the object would normally have been expected to be equipped, and thus, the instant land is subject to warranty.