손해배상(기)
The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
after the filing of an appeal.
The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance can be recognized as legitimate even if the plaintiff examined additional evidences in this court.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) changing “this court” into “court of the first instance”; and (b) adding the following judgments to “court of the first instance”; and (c) as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding the following judgments with respect to the conjunctive claims added by the Plaintiff in this court, the court’s reasoning of the judgment is as follows; (d) thereby, it includes a summary pursuant
The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants’ mistake caused the Plaintiff’s mistake to disclose the instant decision protocol to the Plaintiff and to change the building-to-land ratio and floor area ratio. As such, the Defendants are liable for tort against the Plaintiff at least by negligence.
Judgment
Defendant C sent e-mail accompanied by the instant decision protocol to P, only was intended to inform P of the modification of the industrial complex plan containing modification of the building-to-land ratio and floor area ratio, such as the written decision, and the modification of the building-to-land ratio and floor area ratio became final and conclusive.
It does not appear to the effect that the Defendants are guaranteed such changes.
Therefore, the sales contract of this case was concluded under the Plaintiff’s responsibility and judgment expected to modify the same while the building-to-land ratio and the floor area ratio are not yet finalized, and in the process, the Defendants caused the Plaintiff’s mistake.
Inasmuch as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have concluded the instant sales contract by mistake, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim based on this premise cannot be accepted.
If so, the judgment of the court of first instance dismissing the plaintiff's claim is just, and the plaintiff added it to this court.