(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.31 2019나2015616

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) 서울고등법원 2019.05.31 2019나2015616

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the conjunctive claim that changed in exchange at the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal;

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to this case are stated are as follows: (a) the 5th 20th 20 of the first instance judgment “207.11.11.1”; (b) the 11th 11th 11th 15th 15th 15th 15 of the first instance judgment “Nan” respectively; and (c) the part concerning the 3th 11th 15 of the first instance judgment in the first instance judgment is as follows: (a) the 20th 5th 20 of the first instance judgment “207.11.11.1”; and (b) the part concerning the 11th 15th 11st 15 of the first 11 is as “.”

2. Judgment on the claim for restitution caused by the cancellation of the sales contract by mistake

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the contract for the sale of this case was concluded, and the plaintiffs mistake that a loan for considerable portion of the balance can be made.

This constitutes an error on the key part of the instant sales contract, and the Plaintiffs cancelled the instant sales contract by serving the copy of the claim and the application form for modification as of April 12, 2019.

Therefore, the defendant should return the down payment received pursuant to the instant sales contract to the plaintiffs.

B. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone was impossible to lend the real estate of this case purchased by the plaintiffs as collateral, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

In addition, just because the Defendant provided information related to loans in the process of concluding the instant sales contract with the Plaintiffs, it cannot be said that the method or plan for the payment of the Plaintiffs’ remainder of loans and the payment of the loan was an important part of the instant sales contract.

Ultimately, the above assertion by the prior plaintiffs on a different premise is without merit without any need for further review.

The plaintiffs shall sell the same commercial building as the real estate of this case and in particular unsold shares.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.02 2017나87076

-서울고등법원 2016.03.22 2015나2052648

-수원지방법원 2015.04.02 2013가합14166

-서울고등법원 2016.06.22 2015나2044258

-서울고등법원 2020.08.21 2019나2041066