logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.07.14 2016가단126631
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, a company established for the purpose of construction business, real estate development business, sales agency business, etc., sold a commercial building called “C” (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government BL area.

B. On May 6, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 1,114,940,000 for the first floor of the instant shopping mall (hereinafter “instant store”) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

C. The Plaintiff paid in full the sales price of the instant store pursuant to the instant sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant store on July 7, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s claim for damages was confirmed after the delivery of the instant store. As a result, two columns of a size unexpected in the inside of the instant store existed. Meanwhile, according to Article 84 of the Building Act and Article 119(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, where the columns exist, the area for exclusive use (floor) is calculated as the horizontal plane projection area of the part enclosed by the central line of the columns, and thus, the inside center line of the columns should be excluded from calculating the area for exclusive use. If the inside area of the columns is excluded from the instant store, the instant store is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages based on the cause of the instant store’s actual area for exclusive use (i.e., the area of the instant store’s columns below) through (iii). Accordingly, according to Article 6(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Building Act, the actual area for exclusive use has decreased by 10%, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages to the Plaintiff in full due to nonperformance of the sales contract.

arrow