(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.07 2016가합508749

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.07 2016가합508749

부당이득금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2011, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants that purchased a lot of 621 square meters in Asia-si Esan 621 square meters.

B. On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff agreed to change the land of the Defendants and the said E to the land indicated in attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”), and on April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff stated “A” as “Asi E” in the instant land No. 2 from the Defendants, but it appears to be a clerical error of “Asisi E” in the Asisisisisi.

In addition, each purchase price of the housing that will be newly built on the ground was determined as KRW 120 million, KRW 230 million, and KRW 350 million in total, and purchased KRW 30 million.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract”). C.

Attached Form

After the housing listed in the list 2 (hereinafter “instant housing”) began on April 22, 2012 and approved for use on November 13, 2012, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of Defendant B on November 14, 2012, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 27, 2012 to the Plaintiff on November 27, 2012.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the plaintiff paid 402,050,000 won exceeding 52,050,000 won under the sales contract of this case to the defendants as the sales price under the sales contract of this case, and the defendants obtained profits equivalent to 52,050,000 won without any legal ground, and thus, the plaintiff should return the amount of profit equivalent to the amount of profit.

The plaintiff paid KRW 350 million to the defendants according to the contract of this case, but there is no dispute over the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the defendants pursuant to the contract of this case. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid KRW 52,050,00 to the defendants. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff is liable for damages in lieu of defect repair according to the instant sales contract as seen in the underlying facts.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가합588420

-수원지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단552307

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.11.24 2015가단4640

-대법원 2018.05.15 2017다280432

-춘천지방법원영월지원 2019.10.24 2018가합10618