logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2014.07.24 2013가단8906
계약금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2013, the Defendant was the owner of B forest land in Northern-gu B (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff, a corporation engaged in real estate sales business, etc., concluded a sales contract to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 480,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) on April 25, 2013, and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 48,00,000.

B. At approximately 50 meters away from the instant real property, transmission towers installed around April 2012 were set up.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's testimony, Gap's testimony, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5-1, 2, Eul's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff believed that there was no obstacle around the Plaintiff’s assertion, and concluded the instant sales contract, and there was no high voltage electric wires installed at a place that remains far away. This constitutes an error in an important part of the content of the juristic act.

Therefore, since the sales contract of this case was revoked by serving a copy of the complaint of this case on the defendant that the contract of this case was revoked, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 48,000,000 to the plaintiff as restitution.

B. On the ground that the motive mistake falls under the mistake of an important part of the contents of a juristic act, it is sufficient to acknowledge that the motive is the content of the pertinent declaration of intent and that it is the content of a juristic act in the interpretation of the said declaration of intent, and it is necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the said juristic act between the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da5516, Nov. 21, 1995). However, the mistake of the contents of the said juristic act would have led to the general public’s expression of intent.

arrow