매매대금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit and the plaintiff's counterclaim that had been changed in exchange in this court.
1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the refund of KRW 430,00,000 upon the cancellation of the instant agreement with the principal lawsuit. The Defendant, as a counterclaim, requested for the execution of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of this case, which was completed pursuant to the instant agreement. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the principal lawsuit, and accepted the Defendant’s claim for the counterclaim.
Accordingly, since only the plaintiff appealed on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is that of the plaintiff's principal lawsuit (this court changed the lawsuit to exchange) and the counterclaim part.
2. The reasons why this Court is stated in this part of the underlying facts are the same as the entries in the part “1. Basic Facts” from Part 12 to No. 21 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts. As such, it shall be cited by including the summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The 4th to 16th of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.
A person shall be appointed.
F. Since the Plaintiff did not build a road referred to in the above contract even after the contract was concluded with F, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking the Plaintiff to directly open a road or to allow the Defendant to open a road, as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Gahap172 case.
On February 9, 2011, the above court accepted part of the defendant's claim with the purport that "the defendant acquired 49,587/72,397 shares out of the land of this case on December 24, 2003, pursuant to the agreement of this case, which is the agreement of payment in kind, the plaintiff as to the share of 13,554/72,397 (the share of this case) out of February 6, 2004, the court accepted the defendant's claim to the effect that "the defendant made a registration of the right to claim ownership transfer under the pretext of payment in kind of 430,000,000 won against the plaintiff of this case."
On October 20, 2011, the appellate court (Seoul High Court 201Na22179 case) appealed from the defendant on February 6, 2004 pursuant to the agreement of this case, which is the accord and satisfaction agreement.