logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.29 2016가단5025372
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On August 24, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant on the terms that the Plaintiff purchased the down payment of KRW 61,685,100 from the Defendant by setting out KRW 109 of the sales price as KRW 616,851,00 among the buildings on the ground of Dongjak-gu Seoul and three lots (hereinafter “instant building”), an aggregate building, as an aggregate building, at KRW 616,85,100 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The fact that the Plaintiff paid the down payment to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserted that ① the commercial buildings located on the 1st, 2nd and the 1st above ground of the building of this case are located in the building of this case, but in fact, the sales stores such as phrases and food were sold on the 3th, 5th and 7th above the building of this case, and thus such exclusive rights were not guaranteed, and ② the defendant could get loans up to 75% of the sales price, but it was possible to actually borrow approximately 40% of the sales price by cancelling the sales contract of this case on the ground that the defendant breached his contractual obligation under the guarantee of exclusive rights and loanable amount, and seek payment of money as stated in the purport of the claim by cancelling the sales contract of this case on the ground that the defendant had breached his exclusive rights and loanable amount, and then, in preliminary, he claims payment of money by asking for tort liability under the fraudulent act.

3. Determination

A. Regarding the assertion related to the guarantee of exclusive rights, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and No. 21-1, Gap evidence No. 21-1, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the publicity materials produced for the lease of the first and second floors above the ground of the building of this case (hereinafter "the publicity materials of this case") is indicated as follows: "5,200 students of more than 5,200 D private teaching institutes, more than 480 E workers and civil petitioners, and 90 residents" as the migratory population in the building, while introducing "total 6,580 residents of more than 6,580 residential demand" as the exclusive commercial zone.

arrow