매매대금 반환 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, and purport of the whole pleadings);
A. On November 27, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase a part of the purchase price (100 square meters) of the 3,646 square meters of “3,646 square meters of forest land in Innju-gun, Gyeonggi-do” (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 41 million.
(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.
The Plaintiff paid the purchase price of KRW 40,590,000 to the Defendant, and on December 15, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of share ownership transfer on November 27, 2010 under the name of the Plaintiff with respect to the share of KRW 3646,357 out of the instant land.
C. On August 3, 2011, the instant land was divided into three hundred and fifty-seven square meters for C forest land, KRW 893 square meters for D forest land, KRW 1682 square meters for E forest land, and KRW 714 square meters for F forest land.
On August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of share ownership transfer based on the partition of co-owned property on July 29, 2011 as to the share of 357/80 out of D forest land after the said partition.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Before selling the instant land, the Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff with a false and exaggerated advertisement, that the price of the instant land should sharply rise according to the development plan, such as the development plan for the female-gun G G G, including the instant land, the development of H (I North Korea), and the subsequent extension of the fourth line of J (H Dong) road.
In addition, the officially announced value of the instant land at the time is 7,490 won per square meter in 2010, and there is a difference between the Plaintiff’s purchase price (113,697 won per square meter) and 15 times in excess of 2010, the Defendant deceiving the Plaintiff as to the market price.
B. Therefore, the Plaintiff was selected to enter into the instant sales contract by fraud, deception, and deception of the Defendant. However, under Article 110 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract, and sought reimbursement of KRW 41 million and registration expenses paid as restitution to its original state.
② The development plan for the instant land as explained by the Defendant is an important part of the instant sales contract.