손해배상(기)
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit;
If the purport of the entire argument is added to the case No. 1 (real estate sales contract), the Plaintiff prepared a sales contract (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with the Plaintiff on June 29, 2006, stating that the Plaintiff would purchase KRW 350,000,000 in total the price for the land owned by the Plaintiff for KRW 13,488 square meters of D forest and E forest and KRW 7,438 square meters of land owned by the Plaintiff between C and C on June 29, 2006. The Defendant signed and sealed the said sales contract as a observer, and the said special contract contains the phrase “the observer shall be responsible for the path” (hereinafter “instant special contract”). However, it is recognized that a grave on each of the above lands is not arranged as a frighting.
If Gap evidence No. 4 (Agreement on Land Purchase Request) added the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff, on June 30, 2006, requested the defendant to cooperate with the defendant on June 30, 2006 in purchasing KRW 100,000 per square year in principle, in purchasing land of KRW 13 parcels in the F and G in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on Land Purchase Request") and entered into an agreement with the defendant to pay KRW 30,00,000 to the defendant at the expense necessary for purchasing activities (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement on Land Purchase Request"). After the preparation of the above agreement, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 1
The Plaintiff asserted that the part of the claim for damages arising from the principal claim was liable to the Defendant as specified in the instant special agreement, and that the Plaintiff did not perform the said agreement, despite the agreement that all the graves of approximately 13,48m2 and approximately 11m3m2 on the land of the said E, 7,438m2, as indicated in the instant special agreement, suffered damages due to the failure of the Plaintiff to properly use and benefit from each of the said land, and sought damages against the Defendant.
The defendant did not cooperate with the defendant at his own expense, but first, the plaintiff did not cooperate with the defendant at his own expense.