beta
Text
All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.
Reasons
Basic Facts
Plux Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plux”) entered into a trust contract and an agent contract with a company that carries out the business of newly constructing and selling D (hereinafter “instant building”) on the parcel of land outside the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu, and 15 (hereinafter “Pluxol”) to ensure that the Plux Real Estate Trust is entrusted with the site of the instant building and manages the sale price and development cost paid by the buyer according to the sale of the instant building.
Plaintiff
A around January 9, 2008, around 200 206,280,280,000 of the B2-story stores of the instant building were sold in lots at KRW 477,262,00,00, and the development cost of KRW 47,520,000 until June 16, 2008. The Plaintiff B paid KRW 212,919,00,000 for the sales price for the B-story stores of the instant building from the lusheshesheshesheshe had sold in lots at KRW 17,820,00 for the development cost of KRW 92,00 until June 16, 2008.
(2) The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap17757 on the return of the sale price for the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the registration of the real estate.
On February 5, 2010, the court of the first instance held that each of the instant sales contracts between the plaintiffs and Rolass was cancelled by the plaintiffs' declaration of intent of rescission for delay of Rolass, and ordered the plaintiffs to return the sales price, etc., but dismissed the claim on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge the right to claim the refund of the sales price for the trust for the trust for the trust for the trust for the trust for the trust for the trust for the substitute.