beta
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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this case is that the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment, except for the following changes:
5 The following shall be changed from 1 to 4:
Then, as to whether the Defendant’s person responsible for selling the instant apartment at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff by itself with the statement of the health stand, Gap’s 3, and 4 as to whether the apartment unit had been sold at least 60% after completion of the sales contract, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it (as a result of the statement of Gap’s 4, it is acknowledged that the Defendant’s employee in charge of selling the instant apartment unit stated that the Plaintiff and C did not have a plan for discount sale of the instant apartment unit on April 18, 2013, which was after the conclusion of the instant sales contract (as of June 29, 201), it is difficult to view that there was a circumstance that the sales contract of this case was made at the time when one year and 9 months have elapsed after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, and the sales rate was low over a long time, and thus, it appears that there was a statement about discount sales at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract.
[] The 8th 9th 9th 9 (third part) shows that “the fact that the purchase and sale by discount seems to have been carried out” appears to be “the purchase and sale by discount,” and prior to this, the Defendant entered into a repurchase agreement to sell 467 households unsold in lots to approximately 54% of the sale price, as a measure for securing liquidity on April 28, 2013. However, the Defendant concluded a repurchase agreement to sell the unsold 467 households unsold in lots to approximately 54% of the sale price. Since the government’s so-called “8.28 Real Estate Measures,” etc., the Defendant disposes of the unsold households under a better condition, thereby reducing the shortage of funds and exercising a repurchase right.