2014 Gohap 58715 Action for the prohibition of settlement of accounts

Attached Table 1 is as shown in the plaintiff's list.

Plaintiffs (LLC) LLC et al.

Attorney Park Jong-sung, and Kim Jong-chul

1. Sluice Co., Ltd.;

Representative Director ○ Kim

2. Original construction of a stock company;

○○○

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Kim Tae-tae

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Attorney Park Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

April 7, 2015

April 21, 2015

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The Defendants shall jointly and severally notify the Plaintiffs of each claim amount calculation sheet in the corresponding column of the claim amount calculation sheet in attached Form 2.

As to this, 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

D. The sum of the calculated amounts is paid.

1. Basic facts

(a) The relationship between the parties;

The plaintiffs are owners of each household of the apartment of Cheongdo○○○○○○○○ apartment located in Seo-gu Incheon, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter "the apartment of this case"). Defendant Pluxium Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Pluxium") is the execution company of the apartment of this case, and Defendant Raw Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Defendant Raw Construction") is the construction company of the apartment of this case.

B. The announcement of invitation of invitation of invitation of invitation of the apartment of this case was made around September 30, 2008, and the share of the housing site for each household was recorded as follows in the announcement of invitation of occupants, and the share of the housing site was recorded as it is in the sales contract for the apartment of this case.

C. The instant apartment was completed in around 201, and the instant apartment was completed on August 18, 201 with respect to the instant apartment.

Upon completion of the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the defendant Prine, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiffs on the ground of the sale contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant Prine, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiffs on the ground of the sale contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant Prine. 2) The defendant Prine followed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the apartment of this case. As the total size of the site of this case and the total size of the site area according to the ownership ownership ratio per each household were the problems that conflict between the mother of the site of this case and the

Since then, the procedure for registering the transfer of a site was completed by correcting the shares of the site in each household, such as the following (hereinafter referred to as "the actual shares of the site in this case"). Ultimately, the shares of the site in each household of the apartment in this case were reduced as follows (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of the site in this case") in C column (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of the site in this case") in the sales contract for each household less than the shares of the site in each household (hereinafter referred to as "the shares of the site in this case").

- [Attachment] Shares - [Ground for Recognition] - The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs actually acquired the housing site shares for each household in the apartment of this case, compared to the shares of each household in the sales contract with the defendant fluorium, about 1.4 percent reduced compared to the shares of each household's site.

In the first place, the defendant Lehnman entered into a sales contract with the plaintiffs that "if there is an increase or a decrease in the site area per household with the plaintiffs, it shall be calculated according to the supply price and shall be settled at each other." Thus, the above sales contract has a duty to pay the plaintiffs a settlement amount equivalent to the value of the reduced site shares.

Preliminaryly, Defendant Prine is obligated to pay the Plaintiff money equivalent to the value of the share of the land reduced in this case as unjust enrichment return or damages, given that Defendant Prine took advantage of the interest corresponding to the share of the land reduced in this case intentionally or by negligence and incurred the same loss to the Plaintiffs.

B. The defendant Won Construction is a company that is substantially the same as that of the defendant Prine and is a party to the instant sales contract, or it is denied the legal personality of the defendant Prine, so it bears the same responsibility as the defendant Prine.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the same money as the claims to the Plaintiffs.

3. Determination:

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts can be acknowledged in the entries of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5.

1) While running the sales business of the apartment in this case, Defendant Sheetium newly built and sold apartment and commercial buildings by dividing them. The total project area is 65,602 square meters, and the site area of the apartment part is 63,782,6231 square meters, and the site area of the commercial part is 1,820,000 square meters. 2) The site area of the apartment part and the site area of the commercial part were the same as that of the tenant recruitment notice. The reasons for the separate entry are that the site area of the apartment part in this case was respectively constructed as an independent building on a separate site from the apartment of this case and the building site area of the commercial part is 65,602 square meters, which are the site of the apartment of this case, and that of the building site of this case is 1,820,000 square meters, which is the basis for calculating the share of the building site of this case.

3) The calculation formula to calculate the share of the site of the apartment of this case [the aggregate area of the site of multi-family housing: the exclusive area of multi-family housing x exclusive area of each household x), and if the share of the site of this case is calculated according to such calculation formula, it constitutes the share of the actual site of this case (the share in B. of the attached Table).

4) The apartment of this case is subject to the upper limit of the sale price, and on September 2008, the defendant fluorium submitted the deliberation data on the apartment of this case to the deliberation committee on the apartment of this case. The data contain the same details as the actual share in the housing site of this case as to the shares in the housing site of this case. The defendant fluor decided the sale price of the apartment of this case on the basis of the above deliberation data.

5) Since then, in the course of calculating the share of the site of the apartment of this case as a result of the employee's mistake in the course of calculating the share of the apartment of this case while drawing up the notice of invitation of the apartment of this case, the total area (65,602 m6231m) of the site area of the apartment of this case added to the total area (1,820,000m) of the site area (65,600m) of the apartment of this case to the site area of the apartment of this case shall be calculated as the share of the site of this case (A., the share of each apartment of this case in the notice of invitation of the apartment of this case was written as the share of the site of this case. 6) The sale contract of this case can be calculated as the share of each apartment of this case to the apartment of this case by the time of increase or decrease in the supply area of the apartment of this case by the time of mutual settlement due to unavoidable reasons under the above law.

B. The following circumstances revealed in the above recognition, i.e., the share of the site in the sale contract of this case has a meaning to specify that it is subject to sale, and it seems that the value of the share of the site does not have a fixed meaning as sale and purchase as the actual share of the site. ② When the apartment of this case is calculated on the premise that the actual share of the site of this case is the share of the apartment of this case, the tenant of this case can have known that the share of the site of this case in the sale contract of this case is due to an error in calculation. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the actual share of the apartment of this case is the share of the site of this case as the share of this case in the sale contract of the apartment of this case. ③ The plaintiffs' share of this case is not equivalent to the plaintiffs' share of the sale contract of this case, and the plaintiffs' share of this case or the sale contract of this case can not be found to be included in the sale contract of this case under the premise that there is no difference between the plaintiffs' share of the site of this case and the sale contract of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judges Park Jin-han

Judges Yellow Jin-Jin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.