beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 10, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant and the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government E and F ground G 303 (hereinafter “instant shopping district”) with the sale price of KRW 1.04 billion (the first down payment of KRW 30 million is the date of the contract, and the second down payment of KRW 74 million is the date of the contract, and the second down payment of KRW 74 million is the remainder on September 18, 2015, respectively, on November 27, 2015).
B. According to the instant sales contract, the Defendant received respectively the payment of KRW 30 million for the first down payment on September 10, 2015, and KRW 74 million for the second down payment on September 18, 2015.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2
2. The plaintiffs, as to the cause of the claim, can be actually loaned the amount equivalent to 80% of the sales price of the commercial building in this case from the Han Bank Co., Ltd., and guarantee a monthly profit rate of 9% or more. On the third floor of the building where the above commercial building is located, the entertainment industry, such as singing, does not own permission itself, and they concluded the sales contract in this case with the plaintiffs who had already been completed almost at the time when the sale and lease of the above building was confirmed to enter the building near the above building. Since the plaintiffs lawfully revoked the above sales contract by the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case on the grounds of the above deception, the defendant is obligated to return the total sum of 14 million won (30 million won, 74 million won) received from the plaintiffs to its original state.
However, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of deception as alleged by the plaintiffs with the statement Nos. 3 and 4, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims of this case premised on the cancellation of the contract for sale in this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.