물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 2006, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant totaled KRW 34,000,000 the building, factory, office fixtures (one actual fraud, computer sets, tools sets, one ton motor vehicle) without permission on the land of Gwangju-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “instant contract”).
B. Around that time, the Defendant had received the above object from the Plaintiff, registered its business on November 30, 2006 with D’s trade name, and commenced its business.
C. On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff, while embodying the content of the instant contract in writing with the Defendant on January 25, 2007, agreed that the down payment of KRW 34,000,000 shall be KRW 20,000,000, and the remainder of KRW 14,000,000 shall be paid each month in installments by April 2008.
After that, on September 22, 2007, the defendant settled the balance of the purchase price at KRW 20,000,000 with the plaintiff and the defendant paid the above money by September 30, 2007, but if it fails to comply with it, the plaintiff agreed to return the actual inspection apparatus, tools, and automobiles among the objects of the sale.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). E., the agreement for the payment of the remainder.
The Nam-gu Gwangju Metropolitan City Office demolished the building without permission under the above paragraph (1) around that time.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim
A. Determination on the cause of the claim
B. The defendant's defense, etc.
(a).
The reasons why this court should explain concerning each part of the claim are as stated in each corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (as stated in the paragraph 3 4 - 9 - 3 3 - 10 - 10 - 3 ). Thus, this court cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not pay KRW 20,000,000 until September 30, 2007. Thus, according to the agreement of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to return one of the verification devices stated in the claim to the plaintiff.
(b) an office, including the above inspector.