소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of first instance is dismissed or added as set forth in paragraph (2); and (b) the plaintiff’s additional assertion in the court of first instance is separately determined in Paragraph (3) below; and (c) the plaintiff’s additional submission of evidence in the court of first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment, except for the rejection of the witness H’s testimony which is difficult to believe it as it is, and thus, it is cited by applying the main sentence of Article 42
2. On No. 5, part 5, which is removed or added, the term “instant contract” was added to “the instant exchange agreement.”
Part 5: (a) the phrase “not,” as stated in Part 15, is used as “not to be”; and (b) the Defendants’ side in this case, considering that there was a somewhat imminent situation where the land owned by the Plaintiff was needed for the establishment of access roads to the hospital, the agreement between the parties to enter into a negotiation and return part of the exchanged property to the Plaintiff without adjustment of any consideration or contractual terms at the later time is contrary to the general transaction concept or rule of experience.”
3. Additional determination
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to exchange land by explaining that the plan to open access roads with a width of 19.5 meters. According to the urban management plan, the width of the main access roads necessary for the establishment of a hospital was set at 18 meters in width from the beginning. The Defendants did not intend to open a road with a width of 19.5 meters in width.
Nevertheless, the Defendants, as if necessary, concluded the instant exchange contract with Defendant B with the view to building a road of 19.5 meters wide to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the part concerning the real estate stated in the attached Table No. 1, which was taken place by deception, among the instant exchange contract.