logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.20 2017나61135
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The reasons for this part of this Court's reasoning are as follows: "1. Basic facts" among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of "1. Basic facts"; therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On the other hand, the Plaintiff, as an employee F, etc. of the Defendant, sought an explanation that an intermediate payment loan and a real estate security loan can be made within the scope of the financial right, and concluded each contract for sales in this case. Since the Plaintiff confirmed that the Plaintiff cannot obtain a security loan on the hotel of this case from the first financial right after entering into a contract, the Plaintiff became unable to perform the Defendant’s obligation to proceed with an intermediate payment loan or real estate security loan on the hotel of this case from the first financial right, and on March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel each contract for sales in this case against the Defendant on the grounds of the above nonperformance on March 3, 2016, it asserts that the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment,108,130 won, and its interest paid to the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff asserts, as the conjunctive, that “the hotel of this case may receive an intermediate payment loan and a real estate security loan from the first financial right,” the Plaintiff entered into each of the instant sales contracts, and the Plaintiff expressed his intention to cancel each of the instant sales contracts. As such, the Defendant is obligated to return the down payment, KRW 37,108,130, and its interest paid to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

C. In addition, at the trial, the Plaintiff: (a) made each of the instant sales contracts by misunderstanding that the Plaintiff was able to obtain a loan from the first financial right as security; and (b) concluded each of the instant sales contracts; (c) as such mistake was caused by the Defendant; and (d) the Plaintiff revoked each of the instant sales contracts on the ground of mistake; (b) as such, the Defendant received as down payment to the Plaintiff, and (c) interest thereon.

arrow