logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가합240
부당이득금등반환
Text

1. The Defendant each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 200,000,000 and each of them shall be 5% per annum from December 25, 2015 to October 5, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs agreed with the Defendant to pay the remainder of KRW 400 million on the same day down payment, November 24, 199, and February 26, 2016, when concluding a sales contract with the Defendant, setting the price of KRW 86 million as to the instant land and its ground housing (in sequence, “instant land” and “instant housing”) owned by the Defendant as the husband and wife at the ratio of 1/2 shares.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant sales contract”). (b)

After paying the Defendant the sum of KRW 400 million of down payment and intermediate payment pursuant to the instant sales contract, the Plaintiffs came to know that part of the instant land was used as a road outside the fence of the instant house, and on this ground, sent a notice of cancellation and termination of the sales contract to the Defendant on December 17, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 6, 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the entire land of this case can be used as a site, and concluded the sales contract of this case. The fact is that part of the land of this case is used as a road outside the fence, and its use is restricted. The plaintiffs' above mistake is an error concerning the important part of the sales contract of this case, and the sales contract of this case should be revoked. The defendant must pay to the plaintiffs the amount of 40 million won for the repayment of the price already paid and the amount of 100 million won for damages under Article 6 of the Special Agreement of this case.

(B) In addition, the plaintiffs' claim for revocation of deception based on the violation of duty of disclosure under the principle of good faith, and cancellation of the seller's warranty liability. (3)

A. Based on the above basic facts, Gap's 6, 7, and 8, and Eul's 4 and 6, each of the above basic facts and appraiser E.

arrow