logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나46109
매매대금반환
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff at the first instance trial, the plaintiff, at the first instance trial, restores the defendants to the original state and claims for damages in accordance with the rescission of the contract, and the conjunctively claims for restitution of unjust enrichment arising from the cancellation of the contract due to the defendant's deception. The first instance court dismissed the plaintiff's primary claims and partly accepted the conjunctive claims against the defendants.

As to this, the Defendants only filed an appeal and sought a dismissal of the conjunctive claim, the subject of this Court’s adjudication is limited to the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim against the Defendants.

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following items to the five pages 18 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Additional Provisions] Even if the Defendants did not actively or implicitly deceive the Plaintiff as to whether the instant building can be operated as a reading room, such declaration of intent may be cancelled if there is an error in the important part of the contents of the legal act. However, if such a mistake is caused by the gross negligence of the observer (Article 109(1) of the Civil Act), “serious negligence” refers to a lack of attention that is ordinarily required in light of the name of the observer, the type, purpose, etc. of the act.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff seeking to purchase the instant building may cause mistake as to the fact that the instant building may be operated as a reading room with lawful permission for the purpose of reading, and it is reasonable to view that it is a mistake as to the important part of the contract as to the Plaintiff, who intended to acquire the instant building and obtain profits therefrom.

Furthermore, A.

arrow