beta
Text
1. Defendant CM Co., Ltd.: (a) 2,941,176 won for Plaintiff C and D; and (b) 5,882 for the remaining Plaintiffs, respectively.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. The Defendant Company is running the business of creating and selling a P, a housing complex, on the ground of a real estate of a total of 53,000 square meters in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “P”) (hereinafter “instant business”).
Defendant N is the wife of Q, the representative of the Defendant Company.
B. The Plaintiffs, as the owner of the electric power plant and its site constructed on the instant project site, are the persons who acquired the electric power plant and its site from the persons directly sold by the Defendant Company or directly sold by the Defendant Company.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the entire argument of the parties concerned, the plaintiffs' claims related to the construction and installation of the plaintiffs' incidental facilities are the buyers of P.
The Defendant Company, upon receiving KRW 2.2 billion from the buyer, agreed to create a R of 512 square meters to the buyer, ② create books, events, observation platforms, and outdoor sports facilities (hereinafter collectively referred to as “responding facilities”) in a resting space of 2,00 square meters (green space), ③ create an indoor gymnasium equipped with the entrance gate, table gate, and billiard facility (hereinafter referred to as “in-house galmnasium”), ④ build a apartment gymnasium, and ⑤ install a septic tank at a intervals between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company, and such agreement deals with the contents of the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant Company.
Nevertheless, as the Defendant Company did not create or establish it, it calculated the remaining 67 households except S and Defendant N, on the premise that the buyer is a total of 69 households, under the premise that the buyer is a total of 32,835,820 million won per household as a result of performance of the obligation to pay, tort liability, and obligation to return unjust enrichment to the Plaintiffs.
However, according to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 9 and the whole arguments, Psellers can recognize the fact that 68 persons are total.