약정금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 400,000.
1. The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the testimony of Gap evidence 2 through Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 13-1, 2, Eul evidence 14-1, 14-2, Eul evidence 18, and Eul evidence 3, witness C, D, and E's testimony, and there is no counter-proof.
On March 20, 1990, Nonparty C purchased from Nonparty D the land equivalent to 18,180 square meters in total from 6 parcels of land, including F and G, Nam-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”). Nonparty C formed H Housing Association and planned to build a new apartment house on each of the instant lands by taking charge of the president of the Association.
B. C filed an application for amendment to a plan for utilization of the national territory with the competent authority for the foregoing project, but the application was rejected due to lack of water and sewage pipelines. As a result, C delayed implementation of the project, the above sales contract was rescinded on December of the same year without paying intermediate payments and remainder to D due to pressure on funds.
C. Around May 195, the Plaintiff purchased each of the lands of this case from D in KRW 2,181,00,000 (the above sales contract was originally concluded under the name of Nonparty I who was his pro-Japanese on February 18, 1995, and was concluded again in the Plaintiff’s name retroactively on February 18, 1995). The Plaintiff acquired all of the rights to the above housing association’s projects from C to obtain permission to change the national land use plan for each of the lands of this case, but failed to obtain permission due to the failure to secure the right to use the land and sewage, and eventually, the above sales contract was revoked on October of the same year.
On the other hand, the plaintiff on September 1, 1995, as the broker of Nonparty E, a real estate broker, the defendant is not more than all rights related to each land of this case and the above housing association project.