Representative Market Completion

Law Firm Cheong-do, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellant]

창원시 마산회원구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒2. 이○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

3. 박○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

4. 강○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

5. ■■■■■ 주식회사

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

○○○

6. ▥▥▥▥ 주식회사

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

Park ○○○

7. △ Corporation;

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

Representative in-house director Kim○○

8. 박○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

9. 박○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

최후주소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

10. 정○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

11. 최○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 의창구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

12. 최○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

사천시 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

13. 조○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 진해구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒

14. 김○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 의창구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

15. 이○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

김해시 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

16. 김○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 의창구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

17. 김○○ (▒▒▒▒▒▒-▒▒▒▒▒▒▒)

창원시 의창구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

18. 주식회사◈◈◈◈

창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

송달장소 창원시 성산구 ▒▒▒▒▒▒▒

Representative Director ○ Kim

Defendant 1 through 8, 10 through 18 Korea-style Law Firm, Attorney Han-han, Counsel for defendant 1 to 8

[Defendant-Appellant]

가. 피고 박○○, 이○○, 박○○, 강○○은 별지 공장용지 목록 제1 토지를, 피고 ▥▥▥▥ 주식회사, ■■■■■ 주식회사는 같은 목록 제2 토지를, 피고 주식회사 □□, 박○○, 박○○, 정○○, 최○○, 최○○, 조○○, 김○○, 이○○, 김○○, 김○○은 같은 목록 제3 토지를, 피고 주식회사 ◈◈◈◈는 같은 목록 제4 토지를 각 인도하고,

B.1) Defendant Park ○-○ is the first building among the attached Table 1 list of the buildings;

2) Defendant Lee ○-○ is a second building in the same list;

3) Defendant Park ○-○ and Gangnam-○ were the third buildings in the same list, and

4) 피고 ▥▥▥▥ 주식회사는 별지 건물 목록 2 중 제1 건물을,

5) 피고 ■■■■■ 주식회사는 같은 목록 중 제2, 3 건물을,

6) Defendant △△ Co., Ltd. buildings Nos. 1, 9, 10, 15, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27 among the annexed list 3 of the building;

7) Defendant Park ○-○ is a second building in the same list;

8) Defendant fixed-○○○ building out of the same list 3,4,28:

9) Defendant Lee ○-○ is a building Nos. 5 and 7 in the same list;

10) Defendant ○○○○ building out of the same list:

11) Defendant Kim ○○’s building Nos. 11 and 13 among the same list; 12; 12; 13; 17, 19; 14; 18, 20; 15; 21, 22 of the same list among the same list, Defendant Kim ○○, among the same list, Defendant Kim ○; 14);

16) 피고 주식회사 ◈◈◈◈는 별지 건물 목록 4 중 제1, 2 건물을

each removal of the goods.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of arguments as a result of Gap's evidence 1 to 27, Gap's evidence 31 through 39, Eul evidence 1 to 4, 11 through 41, Eul's evidence 2 and 3, witness Kim ○, Jin-○, and Jin-○'s testimony, and on-site inspection by this court.

A. On December 28, 200, the Plaintiff approved the implementation plan for a project to create a group of industrial sites (hereinafter “instant urban planning project”). The purpose of the project was to promote efficient land utilization and to enhance a pleasant urban environment by attracting collectively the business entity unable to move into an industrial complex within the original state industrial complex and the urban industrial complex in the city area. The special-purpose area was a cement processing business, scrap-off business, recyclable products collection and gas sales business, etc. that are difficult to be located within the downtown and national industrial complex.

B. On April 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) decided to sell a semi-monthly development zone to a housing recycling industry and a recycling product collection shop according to the purpose of the instant urban planning project; and (b) on May 2005, the Plaintiff selected a company to move into the relevant site on the relevant site; and (c) sold a factory site located in the Simsan-si ○○○○, ○○, ○○, which had been engaged in cement processing business, and the next ○○ and the next ○○, which had been in charge of collecting recyclable products, ***--*-*,**-***-*,****-*,****-***-****-* (hereinafter referred to as each of the instant factory sites).

C. On April 18, 2008, Magwon-si ○○○○○ who succeeded to the network ○○○○○ was determined by the Plaintiff as follows: (a) on 18, 2008, 3,881.6 square meters of Changwon-si ○○-dong ○○-dong **-B 1 L; (b) (c) before the change of the administrative district, ******** 484,712,00 square meters of land; and (d) double ○○-dong ○-dong ○-dong ○-dong ****-2L (the number before the change of the administrative district was *****-6, 81.2 square meters of land at the time of sale; and (e) the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not change the sale of land to 1,481 square meters of land at the time of sale to 1,46,600, 206.

Article 16 (Performance of Duties)

2) The permitted purpose shall be in accordance with the schedule of permission for incorporation into the housing redevelopment industry, and the period of performance shall be five years from the date of conclusion of the contract and shall be registered with a special agreement so that it can be redeemed if it is not performed.

D. On July 27, 2007, Lee ○○ and Lee ○○ entered into a land sale agreement with the Plaintiff to purchase 672.5 square meters of 254,205,000 square meters among 1,345 square meters of 0,345 square meters in Changwon-si, Sungwon-si ○○dong****--* (the pre-sale lot number prior to the change of administrative district is ○○○ Dong, 4BL; hereinafter referred to as “***--* factory site”). At the time, the Plaintiff, Lee○, and Lee ○○, set forth the following repurchase terms and conditions, and concluded a repurchase agreement with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff may return and repurchase the proceeds if the buyers fail to comply with such terms and conditions.

Article 16 (Special Agreement for Redemption) "B" shall, when registering the transfer of real estate, implement the registration of special agreement for repurchase as follows:

1) The redemption price: the sale price is the sale price.

2. Conditions for redemption: Where they are used for purposes other than those of the collection of recyclables.

마. 이후 임○○는 피고 박○○, 이○○, 박○○, 강○○에게 ***-* 공장용지에 관한 분양권을, 배○○은 피고 ▥▥▥▥ 주식회사(이하 ‘피고 ▥▥▥▥’이라 한다)에게 ***-*공장용지에 관한 분양권을, 피고 □□은 피고 박○○, 박○○, 최○○, 최○○, 조○○, 김○○, 이○○, 김○○, 김○○에게 ***-* 공장용지 중 각 일부에 관한 분양권을, 이○○, 차○○은 피고 주식회사 ◈◈◈◈(이하 ‘피고 ◈◈◈◈’라 한다)에게 ***-* 공장용지에 관한 분양권을 각 매도하면서, 원고에 대하여 각 분양된 공장용지의 매수자명의변경신청을 하였고, 피고 ▥▥▥▥은 재차 ○○동 ***-* 공장용지 중 2044.80㎡에 관한 매수인 명의를 피고 ■■■■■ 주식회사(이하 ‘피고 ■■■■■’라 한다)로 변경해달라고 신청하였다.

F. The Plaintiff approved the application for change of the name of the purchaser on the condition that the initial terms and conditions of the contract for sale of land and the conditions for change of the name of the purchaser (the above conditions succeed to all the contract terms with the initial contractor) were fulfilled. From the initial buyer, such as YO, etc., the transferee, who purchased the right to sell the land from the initial buyer, promised to perform the terms and conditions of change of the name “the contract terms and conditions entered into between the initial buyer and the initial buyer,” and the Plaintiff attached a repurchase agreement, a special agreement, and a special agreement, a certificate, a certificate, and a category of business classification table, to the effect that the Plaintiff may return the purchase price and repurchase the purchase price. The date and date of the application for change of the name of the purchaser and the date of approval of the initial buyer are as shown below [

[Attachment 1] The date of application for change of the name of the purchaser of the factory site and the date of change

A person shall be appointed.

사. 피고 박○○, 이○○, 박○○, 강○○은 ***-* 공장용지에 관한 분양권을 매수한 뒤 그 지상에 피고 박○○는 별지 건물목록 1의 제1 건물을, 피고 이○○은 별지 건물목록 1의 제2 건물을, 피고 박○○, 강○○은 별지 건물목록 1의 제3 건물을, 피고 ▥▥▥▥은 ***-* 공장용지에 관한 분양권을 매수한 뒤 그 지상에 별지 건물목록 2 기재 공장건물 3개 동을, 피고 □□은 ***-* 공장용지를 분양받은 뒤 그 지상에 별지 건물목록 3 기재 사무동 및 공장건물 5개 동을, 피고 ◈◈◈◈는 이○○, 차○○으로부터 ***-* 공장용지에 관한 분양권을 매수한 다음 별지 건물목록 4 기재 공장건물 2개 동을 각 신축하였다. 이후 피고 ■■■■■는 피고 ▥▥▥▥으로부터 별지 건물목록 2 중 제2, 3 건물을 매수하여 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다. 피고 □□으로부터, 피고 박○○은 별지 건물목록 3 중 제2 기재 건물을, 피고 박○○은 같은 목록 중 제3, 4, 28 건물을, 피고 이○○은 같은 목록 중 제5, 7 건물을, 피고 최○○은 같은 목록 중 제6, 8 건물을, 피고 김○○는 같은 목록 중 제11, 13 건물을, 피고 최○○은 같은 목록 중 제12, 14 건물을, 피고 김○○은 같은 목록 중 제17, 19 건물을, 피고 조○○은 같은 목록 중 제18, 20 건물을, 피고 김○○는 같은 목록 중 제21, 22 건물을 매수하였고, 피고 정○○는 피고 박○○이 매수하였던 위 건물을 다시 매수하여 각 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마쳤다.

H. The Defendants, other than Defendant Park ○, operated a factory of the same type as indicated in [Attachment 2] [Attachment 2] on the ground of the factory site purchased by Defendant Park ○○○, on March 18, 2010 (as indicated in Table 2] and on March 19, 2010, on each of the instant factory sites at the time of conducting a fact-finding survey on the fact-finding survey on the housing redevelopment industry (as regards Defendant Kim○, the investigation on September 9, 2008) and on March 19, 2010 on each of the instant factory sites as described in paragraph (f) (hereinafter “each of the instant factory buildings”).

[Attachment 2] Around March 2010, the Defendants’ practice industry

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

In addition, at the time of the on-site inspection on May 17, 201 of this Court, the said Defendants are as listed below [Attachment 3].

The respective factory buildings of this case were used.

[Attachment 3] On May 17, 201, the Defendants’ performing business at the time of field inspection

A person shall be appointed.

I. The Plaintiff, even though five years have not passed since the first buyer purchased each of the land in this case, on August 26, 2010, deposited each purchase price in the name of the Defendants except Defendant Jung-○, on the ground that the Defendants violated the duty to comply with the permitted business type (matters of obligation in this case) stipulated in the above land sale contract, and notified the Defendants of redemption of each of the land in this case around that time.

(j) On the other hand, on March 6, 2009, registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the Plaintiff on each of the land for factory in this case.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the defendants used each factory building of this case for other purpose not included in the permitted purpose stipulated in the above land sale contract until the plaintiff's repurchase notice. On August 26, 2010, the plaintiff notified the remaining defendants except the defendant Jeong-○ et al. of their intent to repurchase each factory site of this case when depositing the purchase price for each factory site of this case and notifying the above defendants of their intention to repurchase each factory site of this case. Accordingly, each factory site of this case at that time shall be deemed to have been legitimately redeemed to the plaintiff in accordance with each special agreement for repurchase of the above land sale contract.

Therefore, the Defendants, except Defendant Jeong-○, have the duty to deliver the above factory site to the Plaintiff as the land for each of the instant factories was repurchased, and remove each of the instant factories owned by the said Defendants (excluding Defendant Park Jong-○). In addition, Defendant Jung-○, barring any special circumstance, is obligated to deliver the land for each of the instant factories to the Plaintiff, the owner of each of the instant factories, ***--**, and to remove buildings owned by the said Defendant on the ground.

3. Claims by the Defendants and determination thereof

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is responsible for non-compliance with the period of restriction on industry

The remaining Defendants except Defendant Park ○○ (hereinafter “the Defendants”) asserted that since the creation of each of the instant factory sites was delayed due to the Plaintiff’s fault, and registration of preservation of ownership has been made for each of the instant factory sites on March 6, 2009, the Defendants cannot be held liable for failure to observe the period of restriction of business.

The fact that the execution period of the obligation of this case was set five years from the date of the conclusion of each contract for the sale of each of the factory sites of this case, when the network ○○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, and Defendant △△ entered into the contract for the sale of each of the factory sites of this case with the Plaintiff. The fact that the preservation registration of each of the factory sites of this case was completed on March 6, 2009, which was after the conclusion of the contract for the sale of each of the factory sites of this case is as seen earlier, but the fact that the above fact of recognition alone is insufficient to find that the Defendants could not fulfill the obligation of this case due to the delay in the creation of each of the

B. The plaintiff and the defendants, not directly contracting parties, do not apply to the obligation of this case.

The above Defendants asserted that the obligation of this case is not applicable to the Defendants, except Defendant Dol, who did not directly conclude a land sale contract with the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff is not the other party entitled to exercise the right of repurchase, and that the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of repurchase is null and void in violation of the procedure.

When the Defendants, except Defendant 1 and YO, purchased the right to sell each of the factory sites of this case and filed an application for change of the name of the purchaser against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff approved the above Defendants’ application for change of the name of the purchaser on condition that the terms and conditions of the initial land sale contract and the terms and conditions of change of the name of the purchaser were fulfilled. In this case, the above Defendants promised to perform the terms and conditions of the contract concluded between the original market and the initial contractor, and attached a redemption certificate with the purport that the Plaintiff may return the purchase price and repurchase the purchase price. In light of these facts, the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 and YO, purchased the right to sell each of the factory sites of this case and succeeded to the purchaser status of each of the factory sites of this case. Accordingly, the instant provisions on the performance of the obligation of this case are applied to the Defendants succeeded to the purchaser status under the private autonomy principle and the principle of freedom of contract, and the remaining Defendants can exercise the right to repurchase as a matter of course.

C. Claim that the Plaintiff, a person liable for registration of ownership transfer, cannot seek delivery of a factory site and removal of a factory building

Defendant Jeong-○ has a duty to complete the registration of ownership transfer on each part of the factory site of this case to the above Defendant, and the Plaintiff cannot claim the above Defendant for delivery of each of the factory site of this case and removal of each of the factory buildings of this case. However, as long as the Plaintiff exercised a right to repurchase on each of the factory sites of this case, the above Defendant’s obligation to transfer ownership is extinguished. Thus, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

(d) Claim that the whole removal of an aggregate building and transfer of land cannot be sought on the ground that there are grounds to remove part of the building.

The above defendants asserted that since part of the factory building of this case is owned and possessed, the removal of the entire factory building and the delivery of the factory site cannot be sought.

However, there is no ground to view that the owner of an aggregate building site is not legally allowed to seek removal from the sectional owner who did not have the right to use the site, and to seek removal of the building and delivery of the land to the owner of the building on the land owned without the title is the exercise of the landowner's right. Therefore, this part of the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

E. The assertion that the restriction on permitted use of the land of this case is invalid in violation of laws and guidelines

The above Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s limitation of the permitted use of the land for factory in this case to housing redevelopment industry is null and void in violation of the Industrial Sites and Development Act, the Act on the Integration of Industrial Sites and Development, the integrated guidelines for the development of industrial sites, and the administrative guidelines for industrial complexes, by limiting the permitted use of the land for factory in this case to housing redevelopment industry.

According to the evidence No. 40-1 and evidence No. 42, each fact-finding with the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of this court, and the Mayor/Do governor, the fact-finding with respect to the factory site of this case can be recognized not as an industrial complex developed pursuant to the Industrial Sites and Development Act but as a general industrial area developed pursuant to the urban planning project of this case. Thus, the integrated guidelines for the development of the factory site of this case should not be applied to the factory site of this case. Thus, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

F. The assertion that the duty performance of this case is null and void because there is no legal basis

The above defendants asserts that the duty performance of this case is invalid since there is no legal basis and the necessity for public interest is not recognized, and it seriously infringes on the freedom of occupation and business selection guaranteed by the Constitution of Korea.

An urban planning is based on a professional and technical judgment on urban policies by integrating and coordinating administrative means related to one another in order to achieve a specific administrative objective such as construction, maintenance, improvement, etc. of a city. Since an administrative agency has a relatively wide range of planning discretion in formulating and determining a specific urban planning, the decision on the urban planning cannot be deemed unlawful unless there is any deviation or abuse of discretionary power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Nu1501, Apr. 24, 1998).

In light of the fact that each of the instant factories was created as part of the instant urban planning project for the purpose of promoting efficient land use by systematically attracting enterprises which are unable to move into an industrial complex within the original state industrial complex and the environmental low-quality type of business scattered in the urban market, the fact that each of the instant factories was created as part of the instant urban planning project for the purpose of promoting efficient land use. There is no evidence that the urban planning decision, etc., which is the premise for the instant urban planning project has been invalidated or cancelled through administrative litigation, etc., and there is no provision that “the permitted purpose shall not be limited to “Housing Renovation Industry” and “recycling Products Collection” in relation to the factory site created as part of the instant urban planning project.” In addition, considering that each of the instant factories, which were concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants except Defendant Jeong-○, is a private contract subject to the principle of private autonomy and freedom of contract, so long as the obligation of this case is in agreement with the Plaintiff and the Defendants during the process of concluding the above sales contract, the obligation of this case is valid, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise that the obligation of this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

G. The plaintiff's exercise of the right to repurchase is an abuse of right that violates the good faith principle and thus invalid.

1) The above Defendants asserted that, in cases where each of the instant factories is redeemed in accordance with the performance of their duties, each of the instant factories should be removed, such as where a large amount of expenses is to be invested, each of the instant factories buildings should be removed. However, there is no benefit to Defendant Chang-si, and thus, the Plaintiff’s exercise of the Plaintiff’s right to repurchase constitutes an abuse of rights that violates the good faith principle, and thus, is null and void.

2) The principle of trust and good faith under Article 2 of the Civil Act is an abstract norm that a party to a legal relationship should not exercise a right or perform an obligation in a way that violates equity or trust in consideration of the other party’s interest. In order to deny the exercise of such right on the ground that the other party’s exercise of right is in violation of such abstract norm, it should have been provided to the other party, or the other party has a good faith from an objective point of view, and the other party’s exercise of right against the other party’s trust should not be justified in light of the concept of justice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da18401, May 26, 2006). If the exercise of right can be deemed as an abuse of right, the purpose of the exercise of right should be to inflict damages on the other party, and it should be objectively deemed that the exercise of right violates social order. Unless this case falls under such case, even if the other party’s exercise of right has considerably lost its interest, it can not be deemed as abuse of right (see, 2131.

3) 이러한 법리에 비추어 이 사건 의무이행사항이 무효인지 여부를 본다. 갑 제1호증의 3, 갑 제43호증, 을 제1호증의 11 내지 41, 을 제2 내지 10호증, 을 제13호증의 각 기재, 증인 김○○, 진○○의 각 증언에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고 박○○, 이○○, 박○○, 강○○, ▥▥▥▥, □□, ◈◈◈◈가 원고의 허락을 얻어 이 사건 각 공장용지에 이 사건 각 공장건물을 신축한 사실, 피고 ■■■■■는 피고 ▥▥▥▥으로부터, 피고 박○○, 최○○, 최○○, 조○○, 김○○, 이○○, 김○○, 김○○은 피고 □□으로부터 이 사건 각 공장건물 중 일부를 각 매수하여 사용하고 있는 사실, 피고 박○○이 피고 □□으로부터 매수하였던 이 사건 각 공장건물 중 일부를 피고 정○○가 매수하여 사용하고 있는 사실, 이 사건 각 공장건물에 채권최고액이 수억 원에 달하는 근저당권이 설정되어 있는 사실, 이 사건 각 공장건물이 다수의 임차인에게 임대되어 공장 등의 용도로 사용되고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 그러나 위 인정사실 및 을 제11호증의 기재만으로는 원고가 피고 정○○를 제외한 피고들에게 이 사건 각 공장용지를 허용업종 이외의 용도로 사용하여도 환매하지 않겠다는 신의를 공여하였다고 인정하기에 부족하고, 위 피고들이 그러한 ○○을 가짐이 정당하다고 보기도 어려울 뿐만 아니라, 원고가 당초 이 사건 각 공장용지의 용도에 시멘트가공업을 포함시켰으나 주변 공단 입주업체의 민원으로 레미콘, 아스콘 공장을 허용업종에서 제외시키면서 한국산업표준분류표를 기준으로 주택자재를 생산하는 업종을 선별하여 허용업종에 포함시킴으로써 허용업종의 범위를 확대한 점, 원고가 이미 2008. 9.경 피고 박○○을 제외한 피고들이 이 사건 각 공장용지를 허용업종에 해당하지 않는 용도에 사용하고 있는 사실을 인지하고 업종제한의 준수를 요구한 점 또한 인정되고, 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 의무이행사항은 효율적인 토지이용을 촉진하고 쾌적한 도시환경을 제고하는 데 그 목적이 있고, 그 이행기간도 5년으로 지나치게 장기로 볼 수 없는 점, 피고 정○○를 제외한 나머지 피고들이 자유로운 의사에 따라 이 사건 의무이행사항을 약정한 점, 이 사건 각 공장용지의 최초분양 및 위 피고들의 별지 기재 부동산 매수 과정에서 원고가 여러 차례 허용업종의 준수를 요구하였던 점 등에 비추어보면, 이 사건 의무이행사항에 따른 원고의 환매권 행사가 객관적으로 공서양속 및 사회질서를 위반하는 것으로서 정의관념에 비추어 용인될 수 없는 정도에 이르렀다거나 그 목적이 오직 위 피고들에게 고통을 주고 손해를 입히려는 데 있을 뿐 원고에게 정당한 이익이 없다고 보기도 어렵다. 따라서 위 피고들의 이 부분 주장도 이유 없다.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for all reasons and it is decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kang Jin-woo

Judges Kim Gin-Un