logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가단130074
매매대금반환
Text

1. Defendant B and C: 20,000,000 won for each Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 15, 2016 to November 15, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with Defendant B and C, setting the sales price of KRW 3.5 billion as to the building jointly owned by the said Defendants (hereinafter “instant building”).

Down payment amounting to KRW 70 million was paid at the time of a contract, and KRW 20 million was paid at the time of the first intermediate payment on April 15, 2016, and KRW 70 million at the second intermediate payment on May 30, 2016, and KRW 3340 million in remainder on June 30, 2016.

The sales contract of this case was mediated by Defendant Samsung Central Real Estate Brokerage Corporation E.

B. On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiff paid the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff, but thereafter, did not pay the purchase price.

C. On June 28, 2016, Defendant B and C sold the instant building to Nonparty F and G, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 8, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim:

A. Defendant B and C notified the Plaintiff of the details of the lease and the details of the lease of the illegal alteration of the purpose of the use thereof falsely, and did not notify the Plaintiff of any part of the 2,3,6, and7 stories registered as neighborhood living facilities of the illegal alteration of the purpose of the use thereof as residential facilities. The Plaintiff was revoked the instant sales contract on the grounds of deception or mistake by the Defendants. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 90 million paid by the Plaintiff as compensation for damages or return of unjust enrichment, and damages for delay thereof. 2) The instant sales contract was revoked by agreement with the first police officer on May 2016.

Even if the agreement is not rescinded, so long as the Defendants sold the instant building to a third party and completed the registration of transfer, the instant sales contract became impossible to perform.

arrow