beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence 2, 3, and Eul evidence 2 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings as a result of on-site verification conducted by the court of first instance:
Around November 2010, the Defendant, on behalf of an international trust company, divided the H into ten sales facilities (H-09 through 012, 015 through 017, 020 through 021) of the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the five-story area from among the buildings B (hereinafter in this case referred to as the “instant commercial buildings”) into five (H-09 to 012, 015 through 017, 020 to 021), and divided the five-story H area according to the contents of the application.
The fifth floor of the commercial building of this case was divided into several sections for exclusive use, such as the indication of the attached drawing.
At the time, the trust registration was completed in the future of the International Trust Company, which is the trust company, on the commercial building of this case.
B. On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to sell the sales price of KRW 90,891,90 (including value-added tax) with the content that the portion of exclusive ownership of KRW 4.311 square meters on the 5th floor H-021 on the ground among the instant commercial buildings (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”), and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 18,178,380 on the same day.
C. The instant commercial building is used as a whole as a C department store, among which five floors are used as a clothing store.
In addition, the store of this case is currently being used as the clothes warehouse of the clothing store located on the present floor.
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Since the sales contract of this case is null and void or cancelled for the following reasons, the defendant is obligated to pay 18,178,380 won equivalent to the sales price received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment return to the plaintiff.
1. The store in this case is not the object of sectional ownership because of its structural independence.