logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.14 2015가합563923
매매대금반환
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 232,00,000,000, respectively, and KRW 10,000,000 among them, respectively.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The parties to the dispute 1) Defendant C shall be the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the buildings listed in paragraph 2 of the separate sheet shall be “the instant building”

2) The Plaintiffs are real estate agents who concluded a sales contract with Defendant C on the instant real estate, and Defendant D is licensed real estate agents who arranged a sales contract between the Plaintiffs and Defendant C.

B. 1) The Plaintiffs purchased the instant real estate from Defendant C on July 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) at KRW 940,000,000 from the purchase price (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

(2) The Plaintiffs agreed to pay KRW 20,000,000 among the down payment on July 18, 2015, KRW 74,000,000, and KRW 370,000 among the down payment on July 20, 2015, and KRW 370,000 among the intermediate payment on August 17, 2015, and KRW 476,00,000 among the remainder on September 17, 2015, respectively. 2) The Plaintiffs paid Defendant C the remainder of KRW 74,00,000 among the down payment on July 18, 2015, and KRW 74,000 among the down payment on July 20, 2015, and KRW 370,000,000 among the intermediate payment on August 17, 2015, respectively.

C. On September 3, 2015, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel the instant sales contract, which was defective to the extent that the interior wall was strush and fungib at the time of the contract, and that the wall was laid down, but the Defendant C sold the building to the Plaintiffs as if it were a normal building without showing inside the building. As such, the Defendant C sent the content-certified mail to the Defendant C requesting the cancellation of the sales contract, and on the same day, the mail sent to the Defendant C on the same day.

The plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel the contract of this case are deceptions by Defendant C’s act, which did not notify the defects existing in the building of this case in the complaint of this case, and the plaintiffs are subject to such deceptions by Defendant C or mistake.

arrow