logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.21 2019나42198
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendants shall provide each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: the "F" of the first instance judgment No. 20, No. 20, and No. 3 shall be deemed as "C" and the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for restitution due to the cancellation of the sales contract

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, part of the site of the building of this case belongs to another person's ownership, and the Defendants, the seller, cannot acquire the part belonging to the above other person's ownership and transfer it to the Plaintiff as the buyer. The Plaintiff did not know the above circumstances, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff did not purchase the building of this case and the site of this case except the above part. Thus, the Plaintiff acquired the right of rescission of the above sales contract

Therefore, it is clear that the duplicate of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's expression of intent to cancel was delivered to the defendants on January 31, 2018, and the above sales contract was legally rescinded.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to jointly restore to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 200 million and delay damages paid from the Plaintiff, as a result of the rescission of the contract.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants were not parties to the contract, the Defendants asserted that the above contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and K, the unregistered purchaser of the building and the site of this case, and the Defendants are not parties to the contract. The Defendants asserted that the aforementioned contract was not parties to the contract. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence as seen earlier, namely, ① the seller, the Defendant B, and the joint name, respectively, and ② the parties themselves and the Defendant B at the time of the conclusion of the above contract.

arrow