logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.12.14 2015가합577731
매매대금반환
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 November 4, 2000, the Korea Land Corporation obtained the approval of the implementation plan for the C Housing Site Development Promotion Act (hereinafter “instant project”) under the Housing Site Development Promotion Act with respect to the land from the Gyeonggi-do Governor of the Namyang-si, B, and the said land was designated as the housing site development project district.

In addition, on January 10, 2002, the Korea Land Corporation, a project operator, concluded a trust contract with the defendant on a lot of 54,377 square meters in the housing site development zone and had the defendant act on behalf of the project in this case.

Upon completion of the instant project on December 31, 2004, the Korea Land Corporation has obtained a housing site development plan and approval for modification of the implementation plan. The area exclusive use area of 353.90 square meters, 404.37 square meters in public use area, and 368,11,000 won in the sale price of detached housing land for use of 758.27 square meters in parcelling-out area (including construction incidental expenses of 28,367,00 won)

B. On November 15, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a land sale contract with the Defendant with the following content as to the share of each real estate listed in the attached Table 2 through 25, other than the 353.90 square meters in Nam-si, Namyang-si (attached Form 1).

(Exclusive area shall be the area of the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 1, and the common area shall be the sum of the area of the share of the land listed in the attached Table No. 2 through 24 and the area of the share of the building listed in the attached Table No. 25; hereinafter referred to as "real estate of this case" and the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 through No. 25 shall be referred to as "the area for public use").

Since then, the Plaintiff paid the above sales price to the Defendant, and on December 15, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate due to the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 11, Eul evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

(a) Persons who have obtained permission for development activities are new;

arrow