beta
Text
1. Defendant B’s each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 30,630,000 and each of the said money shall be annually worked from February 21, 2014 to November 22, 2014.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim against defendant A
A. The plaintiffs were joint contractors of the construction project of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government (hereinafter "the apartment of this case") and entered into a contract for the sale of the above apartment of 201 Dong 102, 206 Dong 901 (the sale price for each household is KRW 307,80,000, 200, 206 Dong 1102; hereinafter "the sale price for each household") with the defendant Eul who was the representative of the defendant Eul around November 30, 2013.
(2) According to the instant sales contract, the buyer shall pay 10% of the total sales price as the down payment (However, it shall be paid in three-lanes), and the Defendant A paid a total of 2 million won as the first down payment (one million won per household x two households) and did not pay the remainder of the second and third down payment.
(3) The Plaintiffs urged the payment of the second and third down payment unpaid from January 2014, but the Defendant did not pay it. The Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that contains an expression of intent to cancel the instant contract for sale in lots on February 17, 2014, and reached February 20, 2014.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with a Serial), the purport of the whole pleadings
B. (1) The Plaintiffs’ assertion is Defendant B’s agent, and the instant sales contract was effective.
Even if Defendant B’s power of representation is not recognized, taking into account the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant B had the original copy of a certificate of receipt of an application for the purchase of a house prepared by Defendant A at the time of the conclusion of the contract for sale in lots, the expressed representation under Article 125 or 126 of the Civil Act regarding the instant contract for sale in lots is constituted, so the Plaintiffs may claim against
However, the sales contract of this case is made according to the plaintiffs' expression of intent due to Defendant A's default.