A. Defendant A was asked the victim, etc. about whether the waste prior to the conclusion of the instant sales contract was buried in the place where the countermeasures were discussed immediately after the waste was discovered in the instant land. In order to be asked the victim, etc. about whether Defendant A knew of the fact that the waste was buried in the instant sales contract.

It was well known that it was well resolved, but it was detailed.

At present, it is called a thickness telephone.

Such detailed finites are considered to be a finite.

In full view of the fact that “A was already aware of the fact that the Defendant A had been aware of the fact of the fact of the reclamation of wastes before the conclusion of the sales contract,” and the fact that the Defendant A had been aware of the fact that at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, the Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the instant wastes were buried in the instant land at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract.” In full view of the fact that the Defendant A had been aware of the fact that the instant wastes were buried in the instant land at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract.

Recognized.

B. As to Defendant B, Defendant B managed the instant land owned by Defendant A from around 1991 to 2010. From the conclusion date of the instant sales contract to the payment date of the remainder, Defendant B participated in the conclusion of the instant sales contract at all times with Defendant A.

B. As long as A was issued a summary order of KRW 2 million due to the fact that A buried wastes on the instant land, Defendant A received KRW 50 million out of the purchase price, Defendant B owes a duty under the good faith principle to notify that the instant land was buried.

2. Determination

A. The Defendants are aware of the facts charged that living wastes were buried on the instant land, and the victims agree to two of the instant land.