logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.20 2014나2022299
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and the purport of all pleadings:

The plaintiff is a company that engages in building construction business, housing construction business, or real estate leasing business.

B. On September 26, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 1,60,000,000 for the price for a building built of an officetel B large 448.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and the 198.32 square meters for the first floor reinforced concrete restaurant (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

On January 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the balance of the purchase price to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

C. At the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, a concrete retaining wall (hereinafter “instant retaining wall”) was installed near the boundary of the instant land and the land Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City E (hereinafter “E community center land”).

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of concluding the instant sales contract, the Defendant, as the seller of the retaining wall, was obligated under the principle of good faith to notify the Plaintiff, the purchaser of the retaining wall and its basis as part of the instant land, whether the area of the site is reduced or not, and thus, was not notified. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from nonperformance or tort.

B. Since the size of the instant land is the most important factor to determine the purchase price, the instant sale is a quantity-designated sale based on the size of the land. Since the retaining wall of this case and its floor have decreased in the area of the land that could actually be used by breaking a part of the instant land, the Defendant shall return the purchase price equivalent to the reduced area according to the buyer’s right to claim for reduction of the purchase price.

C. The retaining wall of the instant case was destroyed by part of the instant land.

arrow