beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 13, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to acquire the right of lease of KRW 70,000,000 for the first floor of the 3rd floor building in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant store”), which is owned by D, from Defendant B (hereinafter “instant premium contract”).
B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid Defendant B KRW 10,000,000 on October 13, 2016 as premium, respectively, and KRW 60,00,000 on October 31, 2016.
C. Meanwhile, on October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant store at KRW 30,000,000 for the rental deposit, and KRW 1,900,00 for the rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and thereafter, operated the restaurant at the instant store from around that time.
However, on December 2016, the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government notified D of the scheduled imposition of enforcement fines on the ground that some of the instant stores violated the Building Act.
【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including additional numbers), witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings】
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) in the process of concluding the instant premium contract with the Plaintiff, Defendant B did not notify that part of the instant store was an unlawful building, and Defendant C was present in company with the Defendant at the time of the instant premium contract, and also received the premium, the Defendants are obligated to return KRW 70,00,000 to the Plaintiff as compensation for damages incurred by the said unlawful act; (b) the size of the instant store was determined as 82.64 square meters; and (c) in fact, the size of the instant store was smaller than 62.7 square meters, and the size of the instant store was smaller than 62.7 square meters; and (d) the size of the instant store was less than 48.7 square meters if Defendant B was excluded from the size of the unlawful building.