logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.02.14 2018가합58966
손해배상(기)
Text

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

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiffs A and B are married couple, and Plaintiff C are children of the above Plaintiffs.

On March 30, 2017, Defendant D’s land F (hereinafter “instant land”) and the Defendants’ co-owned building (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant D, respectively: (i) ownership transfer registration was made to H on the ground of trust as of June 30, 2015; (ii) ownership transfer registration was made on May 10, 2017, for both the instant land and buildings to be owned by Defendant D 9.9/10 and Defendant E 0.1/100; and (iii) ownership transfer registration was made to H on the ground of trust as of June 30, 2015; (iv) the trust property was returned to the Defendants on May 10, 2017.

B concluded a sales contract with the purchase price of KRW 7,730,00,000.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

In relation to the instant sales contract, the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage prepared by the G in charge of the dispute resolution of the real estate agents (hereinafter “the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage in this case”) indicate the “registration matters certificate, land cadastre, building register, and land use plan certificate” as “data for confirmation and explanation,” and among the building items in the “mark of the object” column, the indication of “the object” is indicated in the portion of the “legal method”. The “use on the building register” includes the “facilities for the first and second class neighborhood living”, and also includes the contents that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants received the confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage in order to hear from the licensed real estate agents about the object of brokerage.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, Nonparty I operated accommodation business from November 10, 2015 to the Defendants. However, according to the building ledger of the instant building, the instant building was indicated as a parking lot for the first floor, the first floor for the second floor, the neighborhood living facilities for the second floor, the second floor for the general restaurant, and the third to 10th floor for the second floor for the second floor. However, the instant building was indicated as a 101.7 square meters out of the actual 2nd floor area for the second floor.

arrow