beta
Text
All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The plaintiffs' grounds for appeal as to the judgment of the court of first instance withdrawn the portion of claim for return of unjust enrichment with respect to a size of 657 square meters, which falls short of the sales contract, which is alleged as the primary grounds for claim in the court of first instance. The plaintiffs asserted only the claim for return of purchase price with respect to a size of 657 square meters which falls short of the designated volume of sale (the grounds for preliminary claim in the court of first instance). It is not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if each evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows each evidence submitted to this court
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts added, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil
2.In addition, the following shall be added between the seventh fourth and fifth of the judgment of the first instance:
In full view of the aforementioned evidence and evidence Nos. 9-17, 18, 20, and 21, the overall purport of the pleadings is as follows: (a) Plaintiff A and B entered into the instant sales contract to secure an O garage; (b) the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, at the time of the instant sales contract, set the sales price of KRW 1,915,760,00 (= approximately KRW 2,488 square x 70,000) converted the size into the size of KRW 8,225 square m25 square m2, based on the unit price of the instant land, based on the unit price of KRW 770,00,000; and (c) the Defendant and P did not finally enter into the negotiations on the sales price on the basis of the average unit price on October 2016, the transfer date of the instant sales contract; and (d) the safety net between the instant land and the NM was established around May 2018.
However, the above evidence and evidence Nos. 8 through 12 can be recognized by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the records and images of No. 8-12, namely, the following circumstances, ① Plaintiff C and F, her husband, own the surrounding land of this case, and F.