(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.11 2017가단134448

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) 서울동부지방법원 2018.07.11 2017가단134448

매매대금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the owner of the instant vinyl, which was installed on the said land by installing a vinyl house (hereinafter “the instant vinyl house”) for about twenty (20) years with the permission to use the said land, Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, with the permission to use the said 1,574 square meters, which is owned by D, and Defendant C is the agent of Defendant B.

B. The instant vinyl was partially destroyed by fire at the end of October 2016.

C. On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with Defendant C regarding the instant vinyl (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the introduction of F, and agreed that the sales amount was KRW 28,000,000.

After purchasing the instant vinyl, the Plaintiff intended to remove the vinyl and install a new residential facility, but failed to install the facility as a sanction by the competent Gu office around March 2017.

E. Around April 2017, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant C as a fraud on the ground that Defendant C sold the instant vinyl house without notifying that it was a green belt area, in which Defendant C was unable to perform a construction act. However, Defendant C was subject to a disposition of suspicion on July 24, 2017.

(No. 2017-type 3000), / [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap's 1, 2, 3, and 4, Eul's entries in the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the instant vinyl for the purpose of residing, and paid KRW 28,400,00 to the purchase price and the removal cost of the vinyl. The Defendants did not notify that the instant vinyl was installed adjacent to the instant vinyl, and that it was an illegal building, and thus, the Plaintiff could not achieve the purpose of the sales contract. Accordingly, Defendant B, as the party to the instant contract, is a joint and several surety, bears the responsibility of Defendant C as a joint and several surety.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for the agreed compensation following the rescission of the contract.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.04.11 2018나65828

-춘천지방법원 2018.12.20 2018가단53814

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.02.03 2015가합341

-울산지방법원 2015.08.21 2015가단3425

-창원지방법원 2013.10.31 2012가합32294