손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for payment shall be revoked.
2. Defendant.
1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The primary cause of the Plaintiff’s claim (A) Defendant C is the party to which the instant exchange contract was concluded with the Plaintiff, and Defendant B acquired all the rights to the instant H land from Defendant C, thereby accepting the Plaintiff’s obligations against the Plaintiff.
(2) Nevertheless, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share out of the instant Hri land, or did not pay an amount corresponding thereto. Rather, on August 26, 201, Defendant B completed the registration of joint creation of ownership with respect to the instant Hri land with a maximum debt amount of KRW 105,00,000 to the Seoju Agricultural Cooperative. This constitutes a non-performance refusal, as it clearly expresses that the obligation to register ownership transfer under the instant exchange contract is not fulfilled. Accordingly, Defendant B’s cancellation of the instant exchange contract by delivering a preparatory document as of May 17, 2016.
(3) Therefore, the Defendants, as the restitution following the rescission of the instant exchange contract, are obligated to return to the Plaintiff the part that the Plaintiff transferred to Defendant C pursuant to the instant exchange contract. Since the entire land of the instant Mri was already transferred to another person and it is impossible to return originals, the Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the portion of the instant Mri land that was transferred to Defendant C at the time of the cancellation of the instant exchange contract and the damages for delay.
B. Defendant C did not think from the beginning that he would complete the registration of transfer of ownership of the Hri land of this case.