beta
Text
1. The defendant's KRW 6,768,180 per annum against each of the plaintiffs and 6% per annum from June 4, 2019 to November 4, 2020.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On September 22, 2017, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the purchase price of KRW 1,180,00,00 with respect to the land owned by the Defendant as well as the building attached thereto (with respect to all the real estate in this case, including the E-dong, F-dong, G-dong, H-dong, and I-Dong) and the land attached thereto (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each of the above real estate on November 10, 2017, after paying the full purchase price to the Defendant.
B. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the first floor building that was extended without permission (hereinafter “the extension part of the instant FF operation”) following the instant building, among the instant real estate, was in line with the building that was extended without permission (hereinafter “the extension part of the instant FF operation”), and the first floor building that was extended without permission (hereinafter “the extension part of the instant IF operation”) following the IF operation of the building (employee accommodation and rest room”).
C. The Plaintiffs received notification from the competent fire station around July 22, 2018 that a building was extended without permission on the instant real estate while operating the gas station, etc. on the instant real estate and preparing administrative procedures to install a large rent engine on the instant site, and removed each of the instant extension around September 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion that each extension of this case which was extended without permission at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case was committed without notifying the plaintiffs of his duty under the good faith principle, and thus, the defendant committed a tort to enter into the sales contract of this case with the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages caused by