토지대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Evidence 【Evidence】1, A2-1, B-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings;
A. On October 8, 2008, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff shall purchase 239 square meters of three parcels of land, including the share of C among the purchase price of KRW 215 million and KRW 15 million in D forest land, the share of KRW 156 square meters in E forest land, the share of KRW 922 square meters in E forest land, and the share of KRW 700 square meters in F forest land ($ 212 square meters), and agreed to pay the down payment of KRW 22 million in December 27, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 21090, Oct. 8, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 21000, Nov. 17, 2008; Presidential Decree No. 21700, Dec. 27, 2008>
On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant purchased the above land and used it as a road, and divided the F forest land of 700 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) excluding D land and E land 27 square meters, and planned to construct each house by half.
(2) On March 4, 2009, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, upon receiving a loan of KRW 100 million from the Korea Exchange Bank in order to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale, completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on the whole land under the name of the Korea Exchange Bank on March 4, 2009 by designating the Defendant as the debtor. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lend KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff from the Defendant and to pay the principal and interest to the Defendant.
(3) The Plaintiff and his father G borrowed KRW 50 million from I to July 8, 2010, and they completed the registration of creation of a mortgage over F forest land with the maximum debt amount of KRW 65 million as the debtor, with respect to F forest land as the debtor.
B. The circumstances leading up to the partial purchase of land (1) around May 2009, the Defendant left J with the construction of the second floor house on the 1/2 side of the land of this case, which led to the narrow passage between the boundary of the land occupied by the Plaintiff and the building constructed by the Defendant and the boundary of the land occupied by the Plaintiff and the passage between the building constructed by the Defendant.
(2) around October 2010, the Defendant proposed G to sell only 10 square meters of the same part of the Plaintiff’s land to G.