logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.07.16 2014가합22936
부당이득금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 468,00,000 to the Plaintiffs and Defendant C from April 6, 2007 to June 30, 2014.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Defendants, in collusion, did not have the authority to sell G reconstruction shops (hereinafter “G shopping districts”) to be newly built in Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, and Defendant C, despite being well aware of the fact, deceivings the Plaintiffs regarding the right to sell the buildings, etc., and Defendant E, on April 6, 2007, intended to pre-sale the commercial buildings on the first floor (A)(7) of G shopping districts between the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs, and received KRW 468,00,000 as the down payment of the pre-sale price.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants did not properly explain the right to sell the land in spite of the absence of the authority to sell the land in question, and receive the money from the Plaintiffs in advance with the down payment of the purchase price constitutes a joint tort by deception. Thus, the Defendants jointly have the obligation to pay the down payment of the pre-sale price paid by the Plaintiffs, which is losses suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the said tort, to the Plaintiffs, the down payment of KRW 468,00,000 and delay damages.

2. Determination as to Defendant C and D’s defense

A. Defendant C and D filed a complaint against the Defendants by the Plaintiffs at the expiration of three years from June 19, 2014. At the time of the complaint, the Plaintiffs should have known of the Defendants’ tort, and at the time of the complaint, the said claim for damages should have been exercised within three years from the date when they became aware of the fact, and the said claim for damages that had been exercised after the lapse of three years is defense that the statute of limitations had already expired.

Article 766 (1) of the Civil Act shall apply to a claim for damages caused by a tort unless it is exercised for three years from the date on which the injured party or his legal representative becomes aware of such damage and of such offender.

arrow