logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.02.09 2019가단11484
손해배상(기)
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 21, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) to sell the first floor E (hereinafter “instant store”) at KRW 754,836,900 among the residential facilities near the 25th floor of Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon P, and the 25th floor neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 26, 2017, the Plaintiff concluded an installment sale contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Defendant, who was entrusted with the instant building by C, on the instant store (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and subsequently paid the sales price in full, and completed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the instant store.

(c)

The store of this case is located at the corner of the building of this case, and the entrance is installed at the front part of the building of this case and the windows are installed at the south side.

The first design drawings of the instant building and the guidance books for sale were installed on the south side of the instant store, which is common areas, to the outside (hereinafter “the instant common areas”). However, the amended drawings changed to the installation of a exchange mechanism in the said common areas. Accordingly, the following photographs were installed at approximately 114 cm wide, about 150 cm high, about 10 cm high, and about 103 cm high (hereinafter “the instant exchange mechanism”).

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 4, 10, and 11, each entry and video, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) At the time of the Plaintiff’s conclusion of the sales contract for the instant store with C, the Plaintiff was designed to set up a unit on the side of the instant store, and the Plaintiff believed it and concluded the said sales contract.

Since then, at the time of concluding the sales contract with the Defendant, the design was changed to install the exchange system on the side of the store of this case instead of the chemical.

arrow