1. As to KRW 40,00,000 and KRW 20,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 5% per annum from April 17, 2017 to November 6, 2018.

Basic Facts

A. On May 3, 2016, the Defendant acquired ownership of 8,744m2 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. On April 17, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase 250 square meters of land and 35 square meters of road shares (hereinafter “instant land”) out of the land before the instant partition from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 20,000,000 on the same day.

C. The latter part of Article 6 of the instant sales contract provides that “The contracting party may claim damages from the other party according to the rescission of the contract, and the contract deposit shall be deemed as the basis for compensation for damages, unless otherwise agreed.”

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “Inasmuch as the land prior to the instant partition, including the instant land, was developed for the purpose of constructing a single house, the Plaintiff shall not use it for the purpose other than the original purpose (the Plaintiff shall not use it as a house for electric source, such as neighborhood living facilities, animal breeding, warehouse sites, construction materials, the work and garage of construction equipment, noise and pollution, etc.) or for other purposes.”

[Ground of recognition] The land of this case, which is the object of the instant sales contract, was specified as C land, after going through a subdivision of the main argument of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the land before the partition of this case, as the absence of dispute, entry of Gap’s 1 through 3 evidence (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

However, the area of approximately 131 square meters (per 942 square meters - 81 square meters) was reduced compared to 285 square meters (per 942 square meters), which is the area stipulated in the instant sales contract.

Since the instant sales contract constitutes a sale that designates the quantity, the Plaintiff claims a reduction in the price at a reduced rate pursuant to Articles 574 and 572(1) of the Civil Act.

Therefore, it is true.