logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.18 2016가단140828
매매계약 해제 등의 소
Text

1. For the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant):

A. The defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C is about KRW 148,00,000 and KRW 24,000,000 among them.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2016, the Plaintiffs purchased the instant building from Defendant C (Agent F) for KRW 245,000,000,000 as a brokerage of Defendant D (Trade Agent E), which is a licensed real estate agent, and concluded a real estate sales contract for KRW 24,00,000 on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 100,000,000 on the date of the contract, and the intermediate payment of KRW 121,00,000 on May 25, 2016 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

The Plaintiffs paid the down payment and intermediate payment on the agreed date.

B. The instant building is 6th floor neighborhood living facilities and collective housing (301).

The purpose of use by floor is not distinguished from registration injury, and the use by the building ledger is divided into Class 2 neighborhood living facilities and class 4 to 6 multi-household dwelling facilities (two households).

However, at the time, two to three floors were used as multi-household houses without permission.

C. In the instant sales contract, the purpose of the building is “multi-household”, and the title description of the object of brokerage is indicated as “residential building”, and the purpose of the building register among the indication of the object subject to the said explanatory note is indicated as “multi-household house”, and the actual purpose column is indicated as “residential”.

Even in the power of attorney drawn up by Defendant C to Company F, the instant building is indicated as “multi-household”.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, and 8's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiffs, prior to the cancellation of the instant sales contract for Defendant C’s claim, and the entire purport of the pleadings, are acknowledged as follows: (a) the Plaintiff intended to purchase multi-household housing; (b) the use of the building was entered in the instant sales contract as multi-household housing; and (c) the confirmation description of the object of brokerage was made on the premise of a residential building; and (d) the details of the sales contract and the description of the description of the object of brokerage.

arrow