[Suwon Real Estate Attorney Success Case] With the Assistance of a Suwon Real Estate Attorney, the Plaintiff's Claim for Return of the Purchase Price Was Dismissed

The plaintiff, who brought a claim against the client for return of the purchase price, argued that the sales contract was a contract induced by the client's deception.

The plaintiff claimed that, because the contract was entered into by mistake, the entire purchase price should be returned.

The client therefore came to a Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun to defend against the claim for return of the purchase price.

■ Laws Related to a Claim for Return of the Purchase Price, Explained by the Suwon Real Estate Attorney

▷ Civil Act, Article 109 (Declaration of Intention Made by Mistake)

(1) A declaration of intention may be revoked where there is a mistake concerning an important part of the content of the juristic act. However, it may not be revoked where the mistake arose from the gross negligence of the declarant.

(2) The revocation of the declaration of intention under the preceding paragraph may not be set up against a third party in good faith.

▷ Civil Act, Article 110 (Declaration of Intention Induced by Fraud or Duress)

(1) A declaration of intention induced by fraud or duress may be revoked.

(2) Where a third party has committed fraud or duress with respect to a declaration of intention made to another, the declaration of intention may be revoked only where the other party knew or could have known of such fact.

(3) The revocation of the declaration of intention under the preceding two paragraphs may not be set up against a third party in good faith.

A Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun argued that the contract in this case had been concluded based on the plaintiff's own judgment.

The Suwon real estate attorney supported this argument by identifying the specific facts of the case, the extent of the plaintiff's proof, and the legal principles relevant to the case.

The attorney further argued that the client had done nothing to deceive the plaintiff or to induce any mistake in the plaintiff's decision-making.

On this basis, the attorney argued that the plaintiff's claim for return of the purchase price should be dismissed as being without merit.

In this case, the plaintiff was demanding return of the purchase price from the client.

The plaintiff argued that the client had deceived the plaintiff, but was unable to state specifically how the deception had occurred, and gave only vague statements.

A Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun therefore argued that the supporting evidence of the plaintiff, who had brought the claim for return of the purchase price against the client, was insufficient.

The plaintiff in the case brought a claim against the client for return of the purchase price, on the ground that an already concluded contract was a declaration of intention made by mistake or induced by deception.

The plaintiff asserted apparent agency under Article 126 of the Civil Act, but this was unrelated to the plaintiff's contentions.

A Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun therefore argued that the plaintiff needed to identify and organize the direction of the plaintiff's own arguments.

The client came to a Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun to defend against litigation, having been served with a claim by the plaintiff in the case for return of the purchase price.

Through a detailed understanding of the case, the Suwon real estate attorney demonstrated that there was no reason for the client to return the purchase price.

As a result of the litigation, the client was able to obtain a decision from the court dismissing the plaintiff's claim.

If, like this client, you have concerns about a case involving return of the purchase price, you may come to a Suwon real estate attorney at Daeryun for a consultation at any time.