beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not inform the victim of the fact that the Defendants had a legal dispute with the third party at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case. However, although the above sales contract is legally effective and the Defendants had the intent or ability to transfer the sales right of this case due to the lack of any impediment to the Defendants’ performance of their obligations, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendants could not be deemed to have deceiving the victim.
2. Defendant A is the owner of 83.54 square meters of the 1st floor E in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, who was entitled to sell G 270 square meters of the housing site G270 square meters in Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, as compensation for the said building due to the designation of a district to be developed for the development of the luxian Housing Site on May 2004. Defendant A is the owner of the 1st floor E, and Defendant B is the owner of the luxian-si, Suwon-si, who was delegated by Defendant A to sell the right to sell the said luxian Housing Site around September 2010
Defendant
A, around December 10, 2003, sold the above building E in Young-gu, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, under a special agreement that “the purchaser shall receive compensation.” On January 20, 2004, upon entering into a contract for the purchase of the ownership of the said migrants’s housing site from the Gyeonggi-do Si Corporation, on April 29, 201, it entered into a contract for the purchase of the ownership of the said migrants’ housing site under the name of the Defendant, and the said H paid the down payment under the name of the purchaser of the said housing site. On August 4, 2011, the said contract was concluded with the Defendant for the transfer of the purchase of the said housing site under the name of the said Party A, and the said Party who failed to implement the agreement was filed against the Defendant A for the performance of the procedure for the change of the purchaser’s name.
Nevertheless, as the dispute over the right to sell housing sites between the above H has become long-term, Defendant A has concealed this fact and made a third party.