(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.05.31 2017나3213 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2017.05.31 2017나3213

계약금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On September 4, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for transfer and takeover of business with the content that the Plaintiff acquires the “D key points” located in Daegu Northern-gu C and underground floors (hereinafter “instant key points”) in KRW 93,500,000.

(hereinafter “instant transfer contract”). B.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,00,000,000, out of KRW 10,000 as down payment, on the date of the contract. KRW 9,00,000,000, transferred to the Defendant’s account on September 5, 2016, and paid KRW 83,50,000,000 until September 19, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) In concluding the instant transfer contract, the Defendant has a duty to notify the Plaintiff of important matters in determining whether to enter into the contract, such as operating expenses and sales of the instant main points, lease relationship with the building owner, whether collateral security is established on a building, and the amount of secured debt. The Defendant did not notify this. However, the instant transfer contract is revoked on the ground of deception by the Defendant’s omission. (2) The Plaintiff entered into the instant transfer contract with the Defendant’s statement that he would be well-known and erroneous, and the Plaintiff’s statement that he would be well-known, and entered into the instant transfer contract with the Plaintiff, which was erroneous.

3) The Defendant concluded a transfer contract of this case using the Plaintiff’s experience in Gyeong Gyeong Gyeong-gu, which constitutes an unfair juristic act, and thus, the transfer contract of this case is null and void. 4) Even if the transfer contract of this case is null and void from the beginning as seen above, and even if it is not null and void, the transfer contract of this case was cancelled by the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the down payment of KRW 10,00,000 and damages for delay.

(b) on the ground of deception 1.

유사 판례

-대구고등법원 2019.12.04 2019나23023

-서울남부지방법원 2018.01.31 2016가단40631

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.06.12 2016가단7834

-인천지방법원 2014.09.24 2014가단6038

-울산지방법원 2015.02.12 2014가단23798