logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.04.10 2018나2008482
분양대금반환
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to divide the building D (hereinafter “instant building”) into 236,70,000 won, and to divide it into e, F, and 3 units, and to divide it into e, F, and 3 units, and to take over the sectional co-ownership share of each unit.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff paid 236,700,000 won to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the form of sectional co-ownership transfer as to three houses of the instant building on February 12, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 7, and 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that, at the time of the instant sales contract, the Defendant filed an application for modification to the oil filling of each story of 9 and 10 floors to the competent authority on 18 floors at the time of the instant sales contract, but actually, it was intended to divide into 132 floors, install individual toilets, etc. different from design drawings to make them available for residential purposes, and thus, it could be subject to administrative dispositions, such as reinstatement and imposition of enforcement fines, due to the possibility of being used for accommodation or residential

Nevertheless, at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Defendant explained as if there were no particular legal problems without explaining the disputes with the competent authorities, etc., and its affiliated therewith, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract.

In addition, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the omission caused by the Defendant or the Defendant’s agent.

However, after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff received a corrective order to voluntarily remove any portion of the building without permission from the competent authority and received a notice of imposition of enforcement fine.

arrow