(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.08.23 2015가단52502

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) 제주지방법원 2016.08.23 2015가단52502

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 1,260,000,000 for the remainder of KRW 1,134,00,00 at the time of the contract, on the condition that each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet was paid on May 29, 2015 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and paid the down payment to the Defendant on the date of the contract.

B. Of the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”), there is a portion extended without a building permit or report on construction of approximately 23.6 square meters in total, such as (i), (ii) and (c) parts other than the attached Table No. 2, among the real estate indicated in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”).

C. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the return of the down payment paid to the Defendant on the ground that the instant sales contract was concluded by the Defendant’s deception.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 1, Eul’s evidence 2, Gap’s evidence 3-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 4, Gap’s evidence 8, and Gap’s evidence 10, the purport of the whole entries or pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, as the cause of the instant claim, knew of the fact that the Defendant had illegally expanded part on the first floor of the instant building at the time of the instant sales contract, and that it was impossible to obtain a business license under the Plaintiff’s name because of the lack of fire-fighting facilities on the third floor, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff enter into the instant sales contract by deceiving the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff may operate his business on the third floor without any permission,” thereby compelling the Plaintiff to enter into the instant sales contract. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant sales contract was revoked and the Plaintiff sought the return of

However, the following circumstances are that the witness C’s testimony (except for the portion rejected later) can look at the overall purport of the pleading.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.11.15 2015가단31432

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.04 2014가단116752

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2015가단5361606

-의정부지방법원 2014.12.12 2014나4171

-수원지방법원 2017.10.27 2017가단510214