beta
Text
1. The defendant,
(a) Plaintiff A and B, each of 15,196,100 won, and 6% per annum from April 5, 2016 to May 24, 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiffs entered into each of the following sales contracts (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each of the instant sales contracts”) with respect to E and one parcel above the ground (hereinafter “the instant hotel”) at the time of Seopopoposi, Seopopoposi, and paid KRW 16,548,590, respectively, until April 4, 2016 as a down payment, and Plaintiff C paid KRW 15,904,110, respectively, until February 15, 2016:
On April 7, 2016, Plaintiff A, the contractual party to the contract, supplied the leased amount of KRW 165,485,90 (i.e., the intermediate payment of KRW 16,548,590) (i.e., KRW 82,732,90, the intermediate payment of KRW 16,54,360) Plaintiff B, on April 7, 2016, KRW 165,485,90 (i.e., the intermediate payment of KRW 16,548,590, KRW 82,732,90, the intermediate payment of KRW 86,194,360) (i.e., the contractual amount of KRW 16,549,041,000) (i.e., the fixed amount of KRW 16,541,041,065, Oct. 20, 2016)
B. With respect to each of the instant sales contracts, Plaintiff A and B were entitled to value-added tax of KRW 1,352,490 from Korea, and Plaintiff C was entitled to value-added tax of KRW 1,299,810 from Korea.
C. The scheduled date of occupancy in the instant sales contract is around March 2018, but the completion rate of the instant hotel construction project as of March 20, 2018, which is the date of closing the argument in the instant case, is 30% and thus, the scheduled date of completion is December 30, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 3, evidence 2, evidence 3-1 through 3, evidence 4-1 through 3, and evidence 5-1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Determination
A. In full view of the reasoning of the judgment as to the plaintiffs' claims, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 3, and the whole arguments, the plaintiffs may cancel each sales contract of this case in case where the occupancy was delayed for more than 3 months from the original scheduled date of occupancy due to the reasons attributable to the defendant company in Article 5 (3) of the sales contract of this case, and the defendant company in total against the plaintiffs.