logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나10017
매매대금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Upon receipt of delegation from Defendant C, D, E, and F on September 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendants to purchase each of the lands owned by the Defendants as described in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) at KRW 255,00,000 for the purchase price.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). B.

According to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 20,000,000 as the down payment on September 28, 2013, and KRW 50,000 as the intermediate payment on October 10, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) revoked the instant sales contract for the following reasons. As such, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return to the Plaintiff KRW 70 million. A) Of each land of this case, the land category of two lots is forest land registered, Defendant B was deceiving that each land of this case was a previous and answer, and the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by deceiving that all of the land of this case was a previous and answer.

B) However, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract without knowing the difference between the land category in the public register and the land category in the public register and the actual status of each of the instant land, which constitutes an error in the important part of the content of a legal act. 2) The fact that the Plaintiff purchased a lot of land of the same size as each of the instant land at least KRW 255,00,000 and did not confirm the copy of the instant sales contract. However, there seems to have been no special circumstances to deem that the Plaintiff did not undergo the aforementioned verification procedure until the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and that there was time for ten days or more even after the conclusion of the sales contract, and that there was time for payment of intermediate payment after the conclusion of the sales contract, J and K, each of the instant cases before the conclusion of the sales contract.

arrow