beta
Text
1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 22,508,280 to the Plaintiffs, respectively, and the period from August 28, 2017 to March 19, 2018.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 30, 2017, the Plaintiffs purchased from the Defendants totaling KRW 2,180,000,000 (land 1,630,000,000, and building 550,000,000) of E and 4 parcels and above-ground buildings in Namyang-si, Namyang-si.
B. On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiffs: (a) filed a written performance statement stating that the Defendants shall pay KRW 550,000,000,000 for the sales value of the building; (b) the seller shall pay KRW 10% of the value of the building; and (c) the buyer shall file a tax return with the rental business operator after the transfer of the ownership and pay the value-added tax to the seller.
C. On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiffs received a notice from the director of the Namyang District Tax Office to refund KRW 45,016,560 of value-added tax.
The Plaintiffs refunded KRW 45,016,560 to the Defendants on August 28, 2017.
[Evidence A] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 10, 10
2. The assertion and judgment
A. (1) The Plaintiffs had the right to receive value-added tax, which is already included in the purchase price of the instant building sales contract alleged by the Plaintiffs, but the Defendants concealed such fact and deceiving the Defendants as if they were to pay value-added tax on behalf of the Defendants, thereby allowing them to prepare a statement of performance that the value-added tax should be refunded to the Defendants. This constitutes a tort and thus seek compensation.
In addition, the plaintiffs prepared a written statement of performance without knowing that they had the right to receive value-added tax by mistake. This constitutes a mistake in the important part of a legal act, and thus, they seek the cancellation of it and reinstatement.
The plaintiffs and the defendants alleged to be the defendants did not separately agree on the value-added tax at the time of the sales contract, but they agreed to pay the plaintiffs value-added tax on the balance payment date and prepared a performance memorandum. The preparation of the performance memorandum constitutes the defendants' tort.