2014dan5704 Return of sale price

A

B Regional Housing Association

September 3, 2014

November 5, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 40 million won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant B-Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”) affiliated with the Type C of the 101 Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul District Housing Association (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Association”).

B. The Plaintiff, upon joining the Defendant Union, prepared and submitted a letter of undertaking, and Paragraph 4 of the said letter of undertaking stated that, considering the characteristics of the regional housing association, this project plan may be somewhat modified in the process of subsequent approval and permission, and that, in such a case, it shall comply with the modified project plan.

C. On April 19, 2010, the Defendant Union applied for the establishment of an association and obtained authorization for the establishment of an association on May 30, 2012.

D. A financial institution, in the course of implementing a loan to implement a project, requires the Defendant Cooperative to strengthen the terms and conditions of the loan, and to guarantee the payment of the Si Treasury. However, Shee Construction Co., Ltd., a contractor, could not meet the conditions of the payment guarantee due to credit rating, and thus, changed into Span global level at the end of 1st century. A loan was executed on June 27, 2014 according to the payment guarantee of Spane global companies, and the Defendant Cooperative purchased 112 lots of land for the implementation of the project on June 30, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 30, 2014.

[Evidence] Facts that Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and there is no dispute

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) Cancellation of sales contracts by deception;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

In August 2014, the Defendant Union may move into the Plaintiff in August 2014, and the purchase of land has been completed, and the construction has been carried out immediately. In the event of failure to comply with the occupancy time limit, the Defendant Union has subscribed to the Defendant Union by deceiving the Defendant Association to compensate for the damages incurred from the construction works. Therefore, the Defendant Union has the obligation to return

2) Determination

As acknowledged in paragraph (1) above, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was notified that its business plan may be somewhat modified due to the characteristics of the regional housing association at the time of joining the Defendant Union, and the fact that the construction project was changed as a matter of the payment guarantee for the construction project and its business plan was somewhat delayed in the process of implementing loans for the implementation of the project, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Union was deceiving, as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit,

(b) Cancellation of a sales contract due to default;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant Union has no ability to purchase land and construct apartment buildings for the implementation of the project, the sales contract is revoked because the obligation has been delayed or impossible to perform. Therefore, the Defendant Union is liable to return the sales price to the Plaintiff.

2) Determination

As acknowledged in paragraph (1), the Defendant Union performed the procedures for implementing the project, such as the execution of loans, purchase of land, and application for approval of the project plan, except for the fact that the project plan is somewhat delayed as a matter of the payment guarantee of the project for the implementation of the project. As so, it is difficult to deem that the obligation has been delayed or impossible, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion of default. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

(c) Cancellation of sales contracts due to errors in important parts;

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff was erroneous in purchasing the land of the Defendant Cooperative, and thus the sales contract is revoked. Therefore, the Defendant Cooperative is obligated to return the sales price to the Plaintiff.

2) Determination

Even if following the statement No. 3, it is insufficient to recognize that there was a mistake in the purchase of land by the Defendant Union, solely based on the above evidence, in light of the fact that the land for the implementation of the project is indicated as the pre-determined and scheduled registration date on March 21, 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges O Young-young