logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2015.08.07 2015가단5540
계약금반환 및 위자료
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, a licensed real estate agent, to purchase at KRW 212,50,000 of the purchase price for Pyeongtaek-si D, E, F, G, and H in order to secure a business for the design and development of the automated machines that he/she operates (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On April 22, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract, the seller paid C the down payment of KRW 21,250,000.

C. On the day immediately before the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff, along with Defendant I, conducted on-site answers to the land subject to the instant sales contract, and in fact, the land that the Plaintiff shown to the Plaintiff was entirely different in the vicinity of the land subject to the instant sales contract.

This was caused by mistake in the location of the land by I.D.

The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to cancel the instant contract on the grounds that the present condition and conditions of the land are different from one’s own thoughts, and thus, concluded an agreement to cancel the instant contract by returning the down payment to the Defendant and C until May 5, 2015.

E. On May 6, 2015, C deposited down payment KRW 21,250,000 as the deposit money under the title of 1374 of this Court on the ground that the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive the down payment of the instant sales contract, on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not receive the down payment.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1 (including branch numbers), and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff suffered property and mental damage due to the mistake of the defendant who arranged the sales contract of this case.

It is also found that Defendant I erred in the land subject to the instant sales contract and shown another land to the Plaintiff. On the other hand, the instant sales contract was revoked for the foregoing reason, and the Plaintiff was returned the down payment of KRW 21,250,000.

This is premised on the above facts.

arrow