(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.03.24 2016나58369

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) 수원지방법원 2017.03.24 2016나58369

계약금 반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. In full view of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the following facts are recognized:

A. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the terms that the Plaintiff leases an inner debt of 85 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”) out of the apartment house with the wife population C, which is located under the Defendant’s ownership, from February 6, 2015 to February 6, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 4.5 million on the day of the contract pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff concluded the instant lease agreement to reside in a detached house as it is growing about a number of marina families, and even though the Defendant notified this to the Defendant, the instant housing was found not to be a detached house. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was revoked on the ground of mistake.

B. In addition, according to the instant lease agreement, the area of the instant housing is 85 square meters, but the actual area is less than this, so the instant lease agreement is revoked on the ground of deception.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 4.5 million and damages for delay.

3. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion of mistake constitutes a mistake in motive that the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement in order to raise a large number of Madices.

In order to cancel the declaration of intention on the grounds of mistake in such motive, such motive should be indicated or the contents of the declaration of intention should be stated.

However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s above motive was indicated at the time of the instant lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff's deception.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2017.09.13 2016나311986

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.10.30 2015가합100884

-대구지방법원 2015.08.12 2015가단20961

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.11 2020가단102058

-서울서부지방법원 2020.07.16 2020나41358