logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.28 2017가단5145150
분양대금반환 등 청구의 소
Text

1. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are parties to a contract for sale in lots with respect to some of the households of “G” (hereinafter “instant building”), which is an urban-type residential building located in the area of Cheongju-si. The Defendant concluded a land trust contract with H and truster Co., Ltd. and H and trustee, which owned the site of the said building, with H and trustee as the Defendant, and thereby becomes the seller of each of the above contracts for sale in lots.

B. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff B K-ho (K) of KRW 82,310,000 on June 4, 2015, Plaintiff C, D L (I) of KRW 119,10,000 on October 119, 2015, Plaintiff B, C, D, and I of the instant units as indicated in the “number of households” column under the attached Table under the instant building with the Defendant and the instant units (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant units”) with respect to each of the instant units as indicated on the date indicated in the “contract Date” column as follows.

(hereinafter “each of the instant sales contracts”). Since then, on August 3, 2015, Plaintiff A acquired the status of purchaser under the sales contract from the said I.

C. The plaintiffs paid the sale price to the defendant.

The sales price under each Paragraph was fully paid, and Plaintiff A paid for the instant building J on March 31, 2016, and Plaintiff B completed each registration of ownership transfer as to the instant building K on March 30, 2016, and Plaintiff C and D on April 11, 2016, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. In supplying each of the instant households to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant calculated the area for exclusive use by including the balcony part corresponding to the “service area” that is not included in the exclusive use area, and the outer wall.

arrow