logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.17 2017나2043198
분양대금반환등 청구의 소
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts and

2. As to this part of the judgment on Defendant D’s main defense, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following parts:

(including the attached parts, and excluding the part against the co-Plaintiff A of the first instance court which has been separately determined) shall be 5,5, and 6 of the text of the judgment of the first instance to “it shall not be deemed that the agreement has been made. Therefore, Defendant D’s main safety resistance shall not be justified.”

3. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Defendant Hyundai Engineering’s claim for damages due to the nonperformance of the obligation to Defendant Hyundai Engineering by the Plaintiff C was held liable for the activation of the instant commercial building by providing the instant system at the time of the sales contract with regard to the first floor 106 of the instant commercial building C, and this was deemed to have been incorporated into the sales contract of the instant commercial building. However, the Defendant Hyundai Engineering did not perform the obligation to prepare the instant system, and did not implement the measures for revitalization of the commercial building requested by the buyers of the instant commercial building.

Therefore, Defendant Hyundai Engineering has a duty to compensate Plaintiff C (the buyer of the foregoing store acquired the status of the buyer by transfer to G’s wife) who suffered damages due to the said nonperformance, for damages arising from the said nonperformance.

B. The plaintiffs' tort damages claim against the defendants 1) violation of the duty of disclosure or duty of explanation under the good faith principle (as to the plaintiff B), the right entrance of the first floor of the commercial building C in this case (attached Form 3 drawing D; hereinafter "the entrance of this case").

) It is not well visible from the outside, and there is a broad hole and a rail on the right side of the commercial building of this case, and there is a tree, large sculptures, and an escalator moving to the second floor with the second floor, which is moving thickly. (attached Form 3 Map A; hereinafter “instant escalator”).

(2).

arrow