(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.09.19 2017가단12365

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) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2018.09.19 2017가단12365

계약금 반환 등

Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally against the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from October 17, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiff purchased land D (hereinafter “D”) and the said land E (hereinafter “E”) together with D (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) from the Defendants for KRW 590 million (hereinafter “instant contract”), and paid KRW 100 million to the Defendants on the same day, and the intermediate payment of KRW 150 million was paid to the Defendants on April 25, 2017, and the remainder of KRW 340 million was paid to the Defendants on June 30, 2017.

B. The statement of confirmation of the object of brokerage prepared at the time of the instant contract states that “the purchaser (Plaintiff) shall confirm on-site and confirm the contents of the building permit (influence),” and Article 6 of the instant contract states that “the contracting party may claim damages, respectively, to the other party, and the down payment shall be deemed as the basis for compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

C. On June 20, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the cancellation of the instant contract on the ground that “The instant land is an area of buried cultural heritage and thus, it cannot be newly constructed a leisure building, and E purchased land to use it as a path for leisure access, but it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the instant contract because it cannot be used for such purpose.” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 entered into the instant contract for the new construction of inn. The Defendants knew that each of the instant land is an area of buried cultural heritage and did not notify the Plaintiff of the fact that construction of inn is impossible or considerable time to take place.

In addition, the plaintiff purchased the land E for the purpose of the road to enter the land D, but E.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2017.02.23 2016가단20151

-대전지방법원공주지원 2015.06.10 2014가합20451

-대전지방법원 2018.01.18 2017나104659

-울산지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가합24164

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.01.23 2018가단7046