May 18, 2016

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The primary claim: Defendant 1 shall pay to the Plaintiff 274,070,100 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

Preliminary Claim: Defendant 2, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-si, and Republic of Korea shall pay to each Plaintiff KRW 274,070,100 and KRW 1) delay damages.

A. Conclusion, etc. of a sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1

1) On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in Attachment 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) from Defendant 1 in KRW 225,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on April 25, 2014 as to each of the instant real estate under receipt No. 43030 on April 25, 2014.

2) As a broker, Defendant 2 arranged the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 with respect to each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). Of the basic confirmation of “the broker’s confirmation and explanatory note of the object of brokerage” prepared by Defendant 2 in relation to the instant sales contract, Defendant 2 stated that “the upper limit of the building-to-land ratio” and “the upper limit of the building-to-land ratio” in matters relating to the restrictions on the use and transaction regulations in public law are “60%” and “10%” respectively, and “other restrictions on the use and transaction regulations” are “no corresponding matters.”

B. Designation, etc. of zones subject to examination of impact on preservation of cultural heritage and zones subject to permission for alteration of the current state;

1) Relevant statutes and ordinances: Attached Form 2.

2) The Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor, on December 24, 2008, adjusted the scope of the designated area of the Si-designated cultural heritage and the protection area of the surrounding cultural heritage including the 00 ○○○○○ Subdivision (relic number omitted), located in the vicinity of each of the instant real estate, pursuant to Articles 9, 71, and 75 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act (referring to the Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 9313, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Articles 13 and 14 of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties of Ulsan Metropolitan City (referring to the Act prior to the amendment by Ordinance No. 1149, Jul. 8, 2010; hereinafter the “former Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Properties”).

3) Meanwhile, Article 90 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Article 52 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21626, Jul. 7, 2009) and Article 23-2 of the former Act on the Protection of Ulsan Cultural Heritage provide that, when the City-designated cultural heritage area and its protection zone are designated in areas other than residential areas, commercial areas, and industrial areas under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an area within 500 meters from the protection zone shall be an area subject to examination as to whether the area affects the preservation of cultural heritage before obtaining relevant authorization, permission, etc. for construction works (hereinafter referred to as “area subject to examination on impact of the preservation of cultural heritage”). Article 90 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Article 52 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act,

4) In addition, Article 34 Subparag. 3 and Article 75 of the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act, Article 30(2)2 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act (referring to the Act before it was amended by Ordinance No. 26, Feb. 3, 2009) and Article 23-2 of the former Ordinance on the Protection of Ulsan Cultural Heritage provides that, when a City-designated cultural heritage area and its protection zone are designated in areas other than residential areas, commercial areas, and industrial areas under Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, an area within 500 meters from the protection zone shall be an area subject to market permission (hereinafter referred to as “area subject to permission for change of phenomenon”). < Amended by Act No. 904, Feb. 3, 2009>

5) Each of the instant real estate is a green area pursuant to Article 36 of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act, and is located in an area within 500 meters from the protection zone of ○○○ Mauri Cemetery, a City-designated cultural heritage (hereinafter “protection zone of the instant cultural heritage”). < Amended by Act No. 5009, Mar. 1, 2008>

6) An area within 500 meters from the cultural heritage protection zone of this case, including each of the instant real estate, constitutes “a region for the preservation of historical and cultural environment” under Article 13 newly established on February 5, 201 after the Cultural Heritage Protection Act was completely revised. For construction works, an examination must be conducted as to whether the impact on the preservation of cultural heritage on the preservation of cultural heritage before obtaining relevant authorization, permission, etc., and there is no change in any restriction to obtain permission for construction works or installation or extension of buildings or facilities. < Amended by Act No. 1093, Feb. 5, 2011>

C. Registration of a national land use information system on each real estate of this case

The instant cultural heritage protection zone was registered in the national land use use information system (hereinafter “national land use information system”) under the former Framework Act on the Regulation of Land Use (amended by Act No. 9313, Dec. 31, 2008; hereinafter “the Land Use Regulation Act”). However, even though the area within 500 meters from the instant cultural heritage protection zone was included in the zone subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage under the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act and its subordinate statutes, and the former Ordinance on the Protection of Cultural Heritage, and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state, such content is not registered in the national land use information system. As a historic and cultural environment preservation zone, on December 3, 2014, the cultural heritage protection zone was registered as “area subject to permission for the alteration of the current state”. < Amended by Act No. 1294, Dec. 4, 2008; Act No. 1295, Mar. 5 through 7, 2005>

D. Non-permission disposition, etc. on development activities on each of the instant real estate

After purchasing each of the instant real estate on March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for permission to engage in development activities on each of the instant real estate, but was rejected on the ground that “it is likely to have an adverse effect on the historical landscape of cultural heritage,” and the Plaintiff applied for permission to alter the current state around the designated cultural heritage in order to construct solar power plants, but was denied on the ground that “the adverse effect on the historical landscape of cultural heritage” was high. “A evidence No. 6 and No. 19).

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, a significant fact in this court, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 6, 19, Eul evidence 5 through 7, 9, 12, Eul evidence 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) The primary claim

(1) Warranty liability, reinstatement, etc.

The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate from Defendant 1 to develop and construct power generation facilities, etc.; however, there was no road connected to the Ulsan-gun ( Address 2 omitted) with a width of 1m adjacent to each of the instant real estate, and other access paths are merely permitted to temporarily use the land owned by another, and thus it is impossible to construct each of the instant real estate, and as such development and construction acts are designated as an area subject to permission for change of phenomenon at the time of the instant sales contract, it was strictly limited. Accordingly, it became impossible to achieve the purpose of the Plaintiff’s sale due to the defect. Accordingly, Defendant 1 bears the liability for warranty under Article 580 of the Civil Act, and the Plaintiff cancelled the instant sales contract by delivery of the duplicate of the complaint. Accordingly, Defendant 1 should return the purchase price of each of the instant real estate, which was already paid, to the Plaintiff, total of KRW 225,000,000,000 and KRW 49,707,700,700,700.

2) Mistake or fraudulent revocation, reinstatement, etc.

A) The Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate in order to develop and construct power generation facilities, etc., and since each of the instant real estate cannot be developed and constructed, it constitutes an error in the important part of the contract. Although such motive was erroneously written at the time of the instant sales contract, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were well aware of the fact that such motive was written several times at the time of the instant sales contract, so it is possible to cancel the instant sales contract. Since the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract by delivery of a duplicate of the complaint, Defendant 1 should return the said KRW 274,070,100 to the Plaintiff.

B) Defendant 1 or Defendant 2 was well aware that each of the instant real estate could not be developed and constructed, but did not notify the Plaintiff thereof. Thus, the instant sales contract was concluded by deception of the said Defendants, and the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract by delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint, and Defendant 1 should return the said KRW 274,070,100 to the Plaintiff.

(b) Preliminary claim

1) Defendant 2’s tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act

In mediating the instant sales contract, Defendant 2 confirmed that there was no restrictions on land use that interfered with the development and construction activities in each of the instant real estate. However, Defendant 2 violated the duty of care to faithfully and correctly verify the object of brokerage in the course of performing real estate brokerage business. Thus, Defendant 2 should pay the Plaintiff KRW 274,070,100 as compensation for damages.

2) State liability of the Defendant Ulju-gun

Since each real estate of this case was designated as "area subject to permission for change of prize competition" on December 24, 2008, the head of Ulsan-gun neglected the obligation to register the relevant matters on the national land use use information system without delay pursuant to Article 8(9) of the Land Use Regulation Act, but neglected the obligation to register them for a period of up to six years, and thereby, the Plaintiff who wishes to develop and construct each real estate of this case, which is not necessary to construct power generation facilities, thereby causing damage, such as the purchase of each real estate of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant Ulsan-gun should compensate the Plaintiff for the said amount of KRW 274,070,100.

3) Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City, Korea’s State liability

If the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City or the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs did not notify the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor or the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of the topographical map, etc. on the national land use information system in the area within 500 meters from the protection zone of the cultural heritage of this case, and the reason why the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City or the Republic of Korea did not notify the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City or the head of Ulsan Gun of the topographical map, etc., he/she shall compensate the Plaintiff for

3. Judgment on the main claim

A. As to the warranty against defects and restitution

1) Relevant legal principles

Where the object of a sale lacks objective nature and performance that can be expected in light of the transaction norms, or the parties lack the expectation or guarantee, the seller bears the warranty liability for the buyer due to the defect. On the other hand, where it is impossible to obtain a construction permit for the land sold for the purpose of construction, such legal restriction or impediment also constitutes the defect of the object of sale and purchase (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da18506, Jan. 18, 200). However, where the construction is premised on the construction in the sales contract or there is no guarantee that the legal restriction on the construction should be removed under the sales contract, it cannot be concluded that the land lacks objective nature and performance that can be expected in light of the transaction norms merely because there is a legal disability that can not be constructed on the land which is the object of sale and purchase, and if there is no evidence to deem that the seller guaranteed the buyer that there was no legal obstacle to the purpose of sale and purchase or sold the land on the premise that there was no such obstacle, such reason does not constitute a defect of the object under the sales contract (see Supreme Court Decision 205Da565656, Aug. 23, 200756, 2075.

2) We examine whether each of the instant real estate defects existed in light of the aforementioned legal principles.

A) Limitations on construction due to the absence of an adjacent road;

Article 44(1) of the Building Act provides that "the site of the building shall adjoin to a road of at least two meters (excluding a road used only for the traffic of automobiles)" and the proviso and subparagraph 1 of the same paragraph provide that "the same shall not apply to a case where "the building in question is deemed not to impede access to the building in question". Among each of the real estate in this case, the land in the Ulsan-gun (No. 2 omitted) adjoins to a road of a width of less than 1m, and the remaining land is used with permission for use from a third person as the owner of another person's land. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the construction of each of the real estate in this case is impossible only due to the absence of a road adjacent to each of the real estate in this case, and there is a lack of other evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone to recognize the legal limitation or obstacle due to the absence of a

(B) restrictions on development and construction due to the location in the zone subject to review on the preservation impact of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for alteration of current state

In order for each real estate of this case to be developed and constructed according to the location of the zone subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state, the fact that the permission for the alteration of the current state should be obtained is as above.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 6, 19, and 21 by adding the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① It is possible to develop and build cultural heritage with permission for the alteration of the current state after examining whether the development and construction is not entirely impossible even in the zone subject to review on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state, and ② in the case of the Ulsan-gun ( Address 1 omitted) located in the zone subject to review on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage as well as the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state as the land adjacent to each of the instant real estate, the Plaintiff’s permission for the alteration of the current state was denied as it is deemed that the Plaintiff intended to construct solar power plants, and thus, it is difficult to conclude that there is a legal restriction or obstacle that it is impossible to construct each of the instant real estate, because it is impossible to obtain

Furthermore, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence No. 1, the sales contract submitted at the time of applying for registration of each real estate of this case does not contain any matters concerning development and construction for the purpose of power generation facilities, etc. asserted by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 stated in the sales contract originally prepared by the plaintiff and defendant No. 3 that "seller sells each real estate of this case according to the present condition." In light of these facts, considering these facts, since each real estate of this case of this case is located in the area subject to review of impact on preservation of cultural properties and the area subject to permission for alteration of the current state, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff could develop and construct each real estate of this case, such as construction of power generation facilities of this case, etc. of each real estate of this case, or that defendant No. 1 as the seller guaranteed this, it is not sufficient to recognize any defects in the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no evidence to acknowledge them differently. Thus, the plaintiff's act of development and construction of each real estate of this case cannot be seen.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on this part on the premise that each of the instant real estates was defective is without merit without any need to further examine.

B. As to the cancellation and restitution by mistake

1) Relevant legal principles

In order to revoke a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake constitutes an important part of the contents of the juristic act, the motive shall be indicated to the other party that the content of the pertinent declaration of intent is to be stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da26210, Sept. 30, 197; 2009Da42635, Nov. 12, 2009).

2) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s purchase of each of the instant real estate in order to construct power generation facilities, etc. in each of the instant real estate constitutes the motive of the instant sales contract. As seen earlier, the instant sales contract does not stipulate any matters concerning the development and construction for power generation facilities, etc. asserted by the Plaintiff, and instead stated that “the seller sells each of the instant real estate as the present condition” as stipulated in the first sales contract prepared by the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, and thus, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 agreed to include the construction of power generation facilities, etc. in the contents of the contract at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, or on the premise of such agreement, it is difficult to deem that the conclusion of the instant sales contract was indicated by Defendant 1, the other party to the instant sales contract, and it is insufficient to recognize it solely with the description of the evidence No. 3 (Verification & description of the object of brokerage) submitted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate with knowledge that it is possible to construct the construction of each of the instant real estate, it cannot be seen as a mistake.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the sales contract of this case can be revoked on the ground of mistake is rejected without having to examine further.

C. As to the cancellation and restitution by fraud, etc.

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant 1 or Defendant 2 knew that each of the instant real estate was subject to restrictions on development and construction activities due to the reasons such as location in the zone subject to review of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state, but did not notify the Plaintiff of such restrictions. The Plaintiff’s claim for this portion is without merit without any need to further examine.

4. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. The defendant 2's tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Code

1) According to Article 25(1) of the Business Affairs of Licensed Real Estate Agents and Report of Real Estate Transactions Act (amended by Act No. 12374, Jan. 28, 2014; Act No. 12374, Jul. 29, 2014); and Article 21(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if a broker is requested to act as a broker, the broker shall confirm the transaction or restriction of use, land use plan, and matters concerning transaction regulations and restrictions on use under the Act and subordinate statutes prior to the completion of brokerage, and explain such fact faithfully and correctly to the broker client who intends to acquire the right to the object of brokerage, and present the evidentiary materials of the explanation.

2) In light of the above provisions, Defendant 2, the broker, stated the “limit on Building-to-land ratio” and “Limit on Building-to-land ratio” of “to-land ratio” and “100%” prepared by Defendant 2 in relation to the instant sales contract, respectively, and stated “other restrictions on use and transaction” as “no corresponding matters.” As seen earlier, Defendant 2 did not explain to the Plaintiff that each of the instant real estate was included in the zone subject to review of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state, but there is no evidence suggesting that Defendant 2 was included in the above zone at the time of the instant sales contract, but there is no evidence suggesting that Defendant 2 was aware of the fact that each of the instant real estate was located in the national land use information system at the time of the instant sales contract, and there is no content that each of the instant real estate was located within the above zone, and thus, it is difficult to view that Defendant 2 was negligent in directly confirming the content of the instant land use information system.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for this part on the premise that Defendant 2 had intention or negligence in mediating each of the instant real estate sales transactions is without merit, without any need for further examination.

(b) Defendant Ulju-gun, Ulsan Metropolitan City, and the State's liability in Korea;

1) Relevant statutes: as shown in Appendix 2.

2) Duty to publicly announce topographic drawings under the Land Use Regulation Act and to enter into a national land use information system

A) According to Articles 8(2), 8(8) and (9) of the Land Use Regulation Act, and Article 7(3)1(b), and 7(8) and (9) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (referring to that prior to the enforcement of August 7, 2009, which was amended by Presidential Decree No. 21667, Aug. 5, 2009; hereinafter the same shall apply), where the head of a local government designates an area, district, etc., where the use of land is restricted, he/she shall prepare a drawing, etc. specifying the area, district, etc. in the topographical map on which the land is indicated, and announce it in the official bulletin of the local government. However, where the scope of the area, district, etc. is directly designated pursuant to statutes or municipal ordinances and rules without any separate procedure, the head of the local government shall notify the head of the relevant Si/Gun/Gu of the name, location, and area of the area, district, etc., the scheduled date of announcement and effect of the designation thereof in the general information system.

B) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor adjusted the scope of the instant cultural heritage protection zone in accordance with the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act and the former Ordinance on the Protection of Ulsan Cultural Properties on December 24, 2008. Since an area within 500 meters from the instant protection zone constituted “area subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage” and “area subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage” under the former Cultural Heritage Protection Act and its subordinate statutes, the former Ordinance on the Protection of Ulsan Cultural Properties, and “area subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage” under Article 7(3)1(b) of the Enforcement Decree of the Regulation of Land Use Act, the area subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the area subject to permission for the alteration of the current state

3) Breach of duty to register the national land use information system of the Defendant Ulju-gun

A) According to the language, structure, etc. of the Land Use Regulation Act as above, pursuant to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 5, 5, 6, Ra No. 1 and evidence Nos. 1, Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor adjusted the scope of the cultural property protection area of this case on December 24, 2008. Pursuant to Article 8(8) of the Land Use Regulation Act as of December 23, 2008 and Article 7(8) and (9) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the land use restriction zone of this case and (2) an impact assessment zone for cultural property preservation (Dong Dong Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si Si), it was reasonable to view that all of the cultural property protection area of this case and the cultural property protection zone of this case were included in the land utilization information system of this case, although it was not registered in the land use restriction system of this case.

B) Determination as to the assertion by the Ulju Group

(1) Summary of the defendant Ulju-gun's assertion

An area, district, etc. under Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Land Use to be registered in a national land use information system. An area, district, etc. designated as a Si-designated cultural heritage and its protection zone falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 5 of the Land Use Regulation Act at the time (as prescribed in the attached Table of the same Act) and was immediately registered in a national land use information system by Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City on December 23, 2008 (No. 1). However, an area subject to examination on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and a zone subject to permission for alteration of the current state within 50 meters from the protection zone of this case did not fall under an area, district, etc. under Article 5 of the Land Use Regulation Act at the time (by delegation of other Acts and subordinate statutes, an area, district, etc. prescribed by Ordinance of the Prime Minister, and municipal ordinances and rules are not subject to registration in the Official Gazette pursuant to Article 5 subparagraph 3 of the same Act, but it was not subject to registration in the National Land Use Regulation System by the Minister of Land, Transport and Transport.

(2) Determination

According to the purport of Eul's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the above assertion by the defendant Ulju-gun cannot be accepted, considering the following circumstances recognized by the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, even though it is recognized that the cultural heritage protection zone of this case was designated on December 24, 2008 and the zone subject to examination of impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission on the alteration of the current state within 50 meters from the cultural heritage protection zone of this case was publicly announced in the Official Gazette as an area, district, etc. under the Act on the Regulation of Land Use.

(1) One of the purpose of the Act on the Regulation of Land Use was to enact a wide number of land use regulations introduced by individual Acts and subordinate statutes, and thus, it is difficult for citizens to easily know the contents of the land use regulation system. In designating a zone, district, district, etc., the procedures for hearing opinions of residents and the procedure for public announcement of topographic drawings, and to promote convenience in land use by computerization of the contents of the land use regulation. Accordingly, Article 8 of the Act on the Regulation of Land Use finally sets out the duty to take measures by the heads, etc. of local governments in the course of becoming an area, district, etc. under Article 5 of the Act on the Regulation of Land Use, and the procedure for public announcement of opinion gathering, topographic drawings, etc., and the procedure for registration of national land use information system, etc., so it is difficult to view that the head of a metropolitan government has a duty to register the information system of the head of a basic local government by designating a group of land subject to restrictions on land use, and notify the head of a relevant basic local government

(2) A zone subject to examination on impacts on the preservation of domestic cultural heritage and a zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state shall take effect as a zone, district, etc. under the Land Use Regulation Act, and in such a case, even if the duty to register the relevant zone on the national land use information system is established, the duty to register the relevant zone on the national land use information system in an area, district, etc. designated by the head of a metropolitan government pursuant to Article 8(9) of the same Act, in which the general public can be seen from the date of entry into force of designation of the zone, district, etc., to the head of a basic local government. Therefore, the duty to register the cultural heritage protection zone of this case designated by the Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor,

(3) Even if a zone subject to review on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and a zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state becomes effective as a zone, district, etc. under the Land Use Regulation Act by a public announcement of the Minister of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, there is no legal ground to deem that there is no need to notify the head of Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor of the relevant Si/Gun in order to register the cultural heritage protection zone of this case designated by Ulsan Metropolitan City Mayor, the zone subject to review on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage, and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of

C) Therefore, the Defendant Ulju-gun is liable for damages sustained by the Plaintiff due to the omission of registration on the area subject to review on impact of preservation of cultural heritage related to the instant cultural heritage in the national land use information system and on the area subject to permission for change of the current state.

4) Defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City and Korea’s State liability

The plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Republic of Korea on the condition that the violation of the defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Republic of Korea is recognized. As seen earlier, since the violation of the defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Republic of Korea is recognized, the part concerning the defendant Ulsan Metropolitan City and the Republic of Korea is not separately determined.

(v)the occurrence and proof of the loss;

A) In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages arising from a tort, where the existence of property damage is recognized, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage due to the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account all indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of all pleadings, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage and property damage therefrom, the nature of the damage, and various circumstances after the occurrence of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da65710, Jul. 10, 2014). Meanwhile, in a case where the occurrence of damage is recognized, the court must actively exercise the right to request explanation as to the amount of damage and urge the verification thereof, but it cannot be deemed unlawful even if the court dismisses the claim where the Plaintiff fails to comply with the request despite the means of proving the amount of damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da34827, Oct. 27, 2005).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate in question without knowing that it was included in the zone subject to review on impact on the preservation of cultural heritage and the zone subject to permission for the alteration of the current state due to the Plaintiff’s violation of the obligation to register the national land use information system in the Defendant Ulju-gun’s national land use information system, and that damages occurred due to the Plaintiff’s failure to use each of the instant real estate for the purpose of purchase. However, even if all indirect facts revealed by the court’s result of examination of evidence and the entire purport of oral argument, it is difficult to determine the amount of damages (the Plaintiff asserts that the purchase price for each of the instant real estate in question and the repair cost, etc. that the Plaintiff believed to construct the instant real estate development facilities, etc. on each of the instant real estate, but it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s damage was all caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to use each of the instant real estate in question,

Accordingly, this court demanded the plaintiff to prove the amount of damages caused by the defendants' illegal acts through the order to prepare for the name statement on April 26, 2016. However, the plaintiff asserted that there is no evidence to prove the amount of damages caused by the plaintiff's illegal acts, but the plaintiff only asserted that there is no causation between the violation of the duty to register and the ordinary damages, such as penalty following the cancellation of the contract to purchase the real estate of this case, and damages caused by the sale of the real estate of this case, etc. to purchase each of the real estate of this case. On the date of pleading on May 18, 2016, this court urged this court to prove the amount of damages again, but it is evident that the plaintiff stated that there is no evidence to prove and submit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant Ulju-gun cannot be accepted as it does not prove the amount of damages.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's main and conjunctive claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges private iron machines (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-ho Kim

(1) As to damages for delay, the Plaintiff claims against Defendant 2 and Ulsan-gun for “the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service date of the duplicate of the complaint to the day of complete payment.” As to Defendant Ulsan-si and the Republic of Korea added to the conjunctive co-defendant, the Plaintiff claimed “the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service date of duplicate of the complaint until September 30, 2015, and the amount calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.”

2) The purport of Article 44(1) of the Building Act stipulating the duty to connect to the site of a building is that a user of a building does not allow the act of constructing a building on land that does not adjoin roads by specifically regulating the relationship between the site of the building and the site of the road in order to maintain and preserve safe conditions in traffic, evacuation, fire prevention, and sanitation. Thus, whether the building constitutes "where it is deemed that there is no hindrance to access to the building" under the proviso of Article 44(1) of the same Act shall be determined individually in light of the aforementioned purport, in light of the type and size of the building subject to a building permit, and the type of the facilities in which the site adjoins, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du6382, Dec. 26, 2003).

3) Although the sales contract (Evidence A No. 1) submitted at the time of filing an application for registration does not contain any of the above special terms and conditions, the sales contract submitted at the time of filing an application for registration does not appear to have been prepared to exclude special terms and conditions as to whether it was prepared to modify the sales price stipulated at the

4) Ordinary damages incurred to the Plaintiff should be deemed as the difference between the market price of each real estate of this case and the market price under the conditions that there is no limitation under public law, which is at issue in the instant case.