logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2015가단5346935
부당이득금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in real estate consulting business, real estate sales business, etc. (hereinafter “instant land”), with respect to ① the sum of 60 square meters (21 million won) out of the instant land on May 18, 2015, and 10 square meters (3.5 million won) out of the instant land on June 9, 2015, KRW 231/612 out of the instant land, KRW 24.5 million, ② Plaintiff B purchased the sales price of KRW 198/612 out of the instant land on May 29, 2015, and ③ Plaintiff C purchased shares of KRW 297/612 and KRW 3.3 million from each of the instant land on May 29, 2015.

B. The above F land, including the instant land, was not incorporated into G urban development area at the time when the Plaintiffs purchased the instant land shares. Since the purchase by the Plaintiffs on July 13, 2015, the land was divided into H, the instant land, I, and J land, and the entire F and part of H land were incorporated into G urban development area, and the instant land, etc. were excluded.

C. Plaintiff A and B established the Defendant’s research institute as K and K University. Plaintiff C is a friendly district with L, the Defendant’s research institute, and Plaintiff C is the Defendant’s representative director, N, the head researcher, O, P, Q, etc., who are the Defendant’s researchers and 20 researchers, including K and L, provided education on the land and customer response methods, etc. sold by the Defendant, and explained to the effect that “assuming and selling the instant land,” “I will be 200% of the development area,” and “I will not know about the entry into the development area of the instant land.” However, there was no disagreement among 20 researchers as to whether the instant land was incorporated into the development area.

K andO solicited Plaintiff A, B, L, and Q to purchase each of the instant land shares, but the Plaintiffs were not aware of the investment value of the instant land shares.

arrow