logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.07.11 2012나90971
부당이득금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the plaintiffs stated in the separate sheet No. 2 No. 1 of the same Table with respect to the defendant.

Reasons

1. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the basic facts are the same as the entry of "1. basic facts" in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the "Calculation Table (1)" in Section 6, 10, and 17 of the judgment of the first instance as "Calculation Table", and the "Calculation Table (2)" in Section 6, 10 as "Calculation Table", and the "Calculation Table (2)" in Section 2 Accounting Table", and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) In calculating the pre-sale conversion price under each pre-sale contract, the defendant should calculate the housing site cost as the supply price of the "public housing site" under attached Table 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Rental Housing Act [Attachment 1] 2(d)(2)(A). In such a case, according to Article 18(1) [Attachment 3] of the Housing Site Development Business Guidelines, the housing site cost is calculated as 70% of the housing site cost. Nevertheless, the defendant applied 100% of the housing site cost to the housing site cost, which is the basis for calculating the pre-sale conversion price. 2) In this case, the standard construction cost should be calculated based on the "housing area" which does not fall under the housing supply area, but the defendant calculated it based on the "total housing area" including other public housing area.

3. As above, the Defendant calculated the Defendant’s pre-sale conversion price under the attached Table 2 subparag. 1 calculation sheet and the attached Form 3 subparag. 2 calculation sheet, and the Plaintiffs paid the purchase price accordingly to the Defendant. Since the part exceeding the legitimate pre-sale conversion price in each of the instant sales contracts is invalid in violation of the mandatory law, the Defendant is obligated to return each of the money stated in the attached Form 2 subparag. 1 calculation sheet and the attached Form 3 subparag. 2

3. Determination

A. The pre-sale conversion price of each of the instant sales contracts.

arrow