beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.07 2016가단523152

계약금등 반환

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant shares 4456 square meters prior to D in Sung-si (hereinafter “instant land”) with E.

B. On April 7, 2016, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiffs on the terms of KRW 242,200,000, down payment of KRW 30,000, intermediate payment of KRW 100,000, intermediate payment of KRW 100,000, and the remainder of KRW 112,200,000, which sell to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(The contract of this case is signed and sealed only by the seal of the plaintiff A, and the seal of the plaintiff B is not affixed, but the plaintiff B filed the lawsuit of this case on the premise that the effect of the contract of this case belongs to himself. Thus, even if the act of the plaintiff A is an act of unauthorized Representation, it shall be deemed ratified.)

The terms and conditions of the instant sales contract are as follows.

It shall be sold only 1907 square meters of the defendant's share among the shares of the co-owners of the special agreement and E.

The purchase and sale price of land shall be 420,000 per nex.

The temporary buildings and garbage on the ground shall be the good of the seller.

Documents for the receipt of permission at the time of the intermediate payment shall be the cycle, and the balance shall be paid after the permission.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purpose of the plaintiffs' assertion is to purchase the shares of this case is to construct the shares on the land of this case.

Since the land category of this case is “former”, permission for development is essential for the plaintiffs to conduct a construction act. To this end, the defendant as well as the co-owner’s written consent and the certificate of personal seal impression, etc. (hereinafter “documents required for development act”).

The defendant received documents required for the development activities of E, co-owners in the contract of this case, and promised to do so to the plaintiffs.