(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2016.12.20 2015가단305786

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2016.12.20 2015가단305786

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 247,000,000 from the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and provided that KRW 24,00,000 on the date of the contract, and the remainder amount of KRW 223,00,000 on September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 24,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. After that, on September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that the purpose of the instant sales contract cannot be achieved due to the drainage and leakage of the instant real estate, and that the said certificate was served to the Defendant around that time.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was normal at the time of entering into the instant sales contract, and that there was a defect in the drainage and water leakage that could not achieve the purpose of the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiff rescinded the instant sales contract on September 24, 2015.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 48,00,000 (=24,000,000 for the damages equivalent to the down payment of KRW 24,00,000 for the damages corresponding to the down payment) and the damages for delay.

B. As to whether there exists a defect in the instant real estate, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the existence of a defect such as water leakage and water leakage on the instant real estate only with the statement as to whether there is a defect in the instant real estate, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5-1 through 19, and Eul’s testimony as to whether there is a defect in the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of a defect. Even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is actually existing, the following facts are acknowledged by taking into account the description as to subparagraph 1,

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가합32878

-인천지방법원 2020.07.16 2019가단1816

-부산지방법원 2016.01.15 2014나48245

-대전지방법원서산지원 2019.01.09 2018가단1287

-부산지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단22113