beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 16, 2009, the Plaintiffs concluded a real estate sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, as indicated in Articles 1 through 6 of the attached Table D owned by D, to purchase each real estate listed in Articles 7 through 14 of the attached Table No. 7 of the attached Table No. 4, and each real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 7 through 14 (i.e., the change of the name of the administrative district on January 1, 2012, the “Sajin-gun” was changed to “Sajin-gun,” and agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 200 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder amount of KRW 6.8 billion on July 16, 2009.
B. The Plaintiffs paid 200 million won to D as the down payment on June 16, 2009, and paid 1.5 billion won out of the total purchase price of KRW 7 billion by paying the remainder amount of KRW 250 million on July 29, 2009, KRW 1 billion on August 20, 2009, and KRW 50 billion on September 10, 2009.
C. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant sales contract was rescinded by agreement, and filed a lawsuit against D and the Defendant on December 17, 2013, seeking the return of KRW 1.436 billion remaining after deducting KRW 64 million from the purchase price already paid by D, as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013Gahap108250,000, which was KRW 1.5 billion (= Plaintiff A1.236 billion + Plaintiff B.20 million).
With respect to the plaintiffs' claims against D, the court held that D was obligated to return the purchase price of KRW 1.236 billion to the plaintiff A and KRW 200 million to the plaintiff B by recognizing that the contract was terminated by agreement. On the other hand, with respect to the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant, it is difficult to recognize that D was entrusted with the authority to conclude the contract of this case by the defendant, and on May 14, 2015, the defendant cannot be deemed a party to the contract of this case, and the plaintiffs' claims against D against the defendant were accepted and sentenced to a judgment dismissing the claims against the defendant.
E.D is dissatisfied with the above judgment of the first instance court, and Seoul High Court.