beta
Text
1. The defendant,
(a) Plaintiff A, B, and D each KRW 10,000,000;
B. Plaintiff C’s KRW 8,00,000 and each of them on December 2, 2015.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 2014, the Defendant: (a) sold four parcels of the F block-type detached housing site from the Mangyeong Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”); and (b) paid down payment of KRW 26,220,000.
However, when the project of the innovation city was delayed, the company of this case promised to return the down payment to the defendant, but if the project is approved later, the contract is concluded, and the defendant received the return of the down payment and the pre-sale contract was prepared.
(hereinafter) The Plaintiff’s right to purchase and sell this case’s reservation. B
On February 2, 2015, the Defendant sold the instant trade reservation right to Plaintiff A, B, and D respectively to Plaintiff A, B, and D in KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 8,000,000 to Plaintiff C.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) C.
However, as the company of this case could not exercise the sales contract of this case in the process of sale since then, the plaintiffs were unable to conclude the sales contract by exercising the above sales contract right.
[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1-4, witness G testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. According to the above facts, the defendant who sold the right to claim restitution following the rescission of the contract in this case bears the duty to transfer the status of the purchaser so that the plaintiffs can exercise their right to purchase and sell the contract in this case. The defendant was unable to perform his duty to transfer the above position because the company in this case did not recognize the transfer of the right to purchase and sell the contract in this case, and the contract in this case was eventually impossible for the plaintiffs to conclude the contract in this case. Accordingly, the contract in this case should be seen as being impossible for the plaintiffs to perform the contract in this case by delivery of the complaint in this case.