beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiffs, which orders payment under the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the real estate listed in the separate sheet was illegally expanded and used as a parking lot for about 10.9 square meters at the time of approval for the use of the building.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in total, even before the parking lot is invaded. (b)
Around March 2014, the Defendant divided the instant real estate into two, and leased part of the instant real estate to D. D operated a coffee shop (hereinafter “instant coffee shop”). Around the same time, the remainder of the instant real estate was leased to E, and E operated a washing shop (hereinafter “instant washing shop”).
C. Both the instant coffee shop and laundry occupies the parking lot part that was illegally expanded as above, and the part where the instant laundry was invaded is far larger than the part where the instant laundry was invaded.
On July 5, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 315 million (the balance of KRW 50 million on the date of the contract, and KRW 265 million on July 16, 2014, and the remaining amount of KRW 265 million may be deferred as of July 16, 2014) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, and agreed to succeed to the lessor’s status under each lease contract entered into with D and E, and paid the Defendant a down payment of KRW 50 million to the Defendant on the same day.
E. The Plaintiffs did not pay any balance that they agreed to pay to the Defendant up to the present day, and the Defendant, through content-certified mail, notified the Plaintiffs of the performance thereof by setting the deadline on July 18, 2014, by the 28th of the same month. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs notified the rescission of the instant sales contract on the ground of the Plaintiffs’ failure to pay the remainder, and then, 50 million down payment received from the Plaintiffs.