소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the supplementary selective claims in the trial are all dismissed.
2. Appeal costs and selective claims.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendants for ownership transfer registration under the exchange contract and damages arising from nonperformance of the above exchange contract on August 25, 2016, and received a partial judgment of admitting the part concerning the claim for ownership transfer registration, and dismissed the claim for damages. The Plaintiff filed an appeal only on the part concerning the claim for damages among them, and added the claim for damages arising from tort as the cause of the claim for damages.
Accordingly, since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance becomes final and conclusive, only the part concerning the non-performance of the above exchange contract or the claim for damages caused by illegal acts is subject to the judgment of this court, it is to judge only this part.
2. The reasoning of the judgment of the court on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420
3. Determination on the claim for damages due to the installation of retaining walls
A. Before entering into the instant exchange contract, the Defendants requested the Plaintiff to install a retaining wall necessary for the construction work of the Defendants on the Plaintiff’s land in advance during the negotiation process.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff confirmed that the Defendants would create a chemical unit on the land boundary area after confirming the design drawing of the construction works that the Defendants would run, and considered that the Defendants would install a retaining wall as indicated in the design drawing, and considered that the Defendants would install a retaining wall within a certain distance from the boundary line of the land and permitted the Defendants to install a retaining wall.
However, the defendants installed a retaining wall higher than the design drawing indication on the boundary of the land between the land owned by the plaintiff and the construction site where the plaintiff implements the housing construction without any buffer zone, as shown in the design drawing.