logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가합111202
매매계약해제에 따른 원상회복 등 청구
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs entered into a sales contract and its contents 1) and the building on the ground thereof (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant on the ground that D 180 square meters and 180 square meters from the Defendant’s Lighting-si.

A) A contract was concluded to purchase KRW 1.33 billion. Of the purchase price, KRW 200 million was entered into. On October 28, 2016, the remainder KRW 4800 million was paid at the same time as the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer were delivered on November 29, 2016. The Plaintiffs decided to succeed to the lease deposit obligation KRW 250 million on the instant building, and the Plaintiffs paid the down payment KRW 200 million to the Defendant on the date of the conclusion of the instant contract. (ii) The instant sales contract stated “a contract was entered into under the actual facilities, and a certificate was confirmed,” and the description and description of the object of brokerage attached to the said sales contract stated “1st floor, 1st floor, 2nd floor, 8th floor, 34th floor, 44th floor, and 3th floor, 44th floor, and 4th floor,” as the housing units.

B. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiffs, including notification of the cancellation of the sales contract, notified the Defendant that “The Defendant is obliged to change the third and fourth floors of the instant building into housing in accordance with the instant sales contract, ② the obligation to change the first floor part into legitimate use, ③ the obligation to change the third floor part into legitimate use, and ③ the obligation to cancel the instant sales contract if the said obligation is not fulfilled by November 10, 2016.” On November 2, 2016, the Defendant responded to the Defendant that “the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the knowledge of all defects of the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ assertion to cancel the contract cannot be accepted.”

C. The present situation of the instant building.

arrow