[토지매매대금청구사건][고집1961민,67]
The buyer's remedy method where there is a usual defect in the land which is the object of the sales contract.
Where the land which is the object of a sales contract is later divided and surveyed, the seller should calculate the price at the time of the contract at the time of the contract and return it to the buyer.
Articles 572, 573, and 574 of the Civil Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] 4289No674 decided Jun. 13, 1957 (Civil Code 572(1)465, 5328)
Plaintiff
Defendant
Daegu District Court of First Instance (4294 Citizens' Group71)
The main case is dismissed.
Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.
This judgment (including paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance) may be provisionally executed.
The agent of the plaintiff shall revoke the judgment of the first instance.
The defendant shall return gold 160,000 to the plaintiff.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second trials, and the defendant is respectively entitled to the judgment dismissing the public prosecution.
On May 30, 287, the plaintiff's representative purchased 1,10,000,000 from the defendant, Daegu-si, 562, Daegu-si, 562, and 1,000,000 Won-dong, 1,000,000 from the above ground, and agreed to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as divided. On July 4, 4, 293, it is only 15,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00).
In the defendant, among the facts of the plaintiff's proposal, the contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant on the date of the plaintiff's proposal and the land was divided into 23 pieces. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the plaintiff's principal suit is unfair since it was not possible to allow the plaintiff's principal statement to supplement the 15th level of the land. However, the contract was denied, since the site was not divided, so it was not specified and sold accurately. Thus, even though the 8th level of the price actually falls short of it, it is not obligated to return the price corresponding to the same part, and it is not reasonable to determine the price according to the market price at the time.
As evidence, the plaintiff's agent submitted the evidence No. 1 and used the testimony of the non-party 1, 2, and 3 as the witness of the court below, and the defendant admitted the evidence No. 1.
On May 30, 4287, the plaintiff was not in dispute between the parties, 562, 38, 562, 562, 1, 310,000, and 4, 1,000, 310,000,000 from the defendant, and agreed to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration as the first installment. On July 4, 293, 4293, it is merely 15,00,000,15, 4,000, which are adjacent to the above site, and it is still 8,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000.
Judges Lee Jong-il (Presiding Judge)