**** Dong******** infinite* Dong***

Attorney Jin-law*

Attorney Lee Jin-law*, Han*

**** Dong*************** Dong***

* (************************))

********************************

*** (************************))

**** Dong************** such***

[Defendant-Appellant] Attorneys Kim *, Park *

* (************************))

**** Dong****************

Attorney Kim Jong-hoon et al.*

2. The plaintiff's homebling*, gambling*, Kim** The main claim against the plaintiff's homebling*, Kim* the defendant's homebling* The rest of the non-party claims against the defendant's homebling* is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Park*, Park*, Kim*, Kim* is borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant Park* is borne by the Defendant Park*.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. A. A. The plaintiff is deceased on September 2, 2005 with defendant gambling*, gambling*, Kim* (hereinafter referred to as "defendant gambling*, etc.") on September 2, 2005

Accordingly, the defendant Park Hah-dong* 512-30 ground-free buildings (one house and one original house) which are owned by the defendant Park Jong-dong*

purchase price of 40,000,000 won for the buildings of this case, hereinafter referred to as "the buildings of this case")

B. The Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with Defendant Park Park * on the date of the contract and the purchase price of KRW 20,000,000 each on September 6, 2005.

All (39,700,000 won subtracting 300,000 won on the basis of cleaning expenses) after payment: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19032, Sep. 9, 2005>

6. The delivery of the building of this case was made, Defendant Park* Defendant Park*, the South-North of Korea, the case* September 12, 2005

The building of this case was removed and destroyed by snow equipment.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence (the same shall apply to Eul 3-5, 6-2), Eul 3-1 through 19, 13, 15 through 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

[Insufficient Evidence: Evidence No. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 2, and Evidence No. 19 of Evidence No. 3]

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff paid the full purchase price of the instant building to Defendant Park*, etc., and ① the said Defendants’ obligations under the instant sales contract were discharged by Defendant Park Park *** due to the removal of the instant building by Defendant Park **, and ② or the said Defendants are liable for selling another’s property by selling the instant building owned by Defendant Park **. As such, Defendant Park Park *, etc. is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 44,00,000,000, totaling KRW 444,000,000, which is equivalent to the purchase price and the penalty (an interpretation to seek termination of contract and damages based on the nonperformance of obligations or the warranty liability).

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the fact that the building of this case, which was owned by the Plaintiff on September 6, 2005, was delivered to the Plaintiff on Sep. 6, 2005, Defendant Park*, etc. is deemed to have completed the performance of the obligations under the sales contract of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the sales contract of this case was impossible due to the reasons attributable to the defendant Park*, etc., but the above defendants sold goods owned by others cannot be accepted.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

Defendant Park Park** On September 12, 2005, and the fact that the Plaintiff had been removed and destroyed the instant building that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership is as seen above. As such, Defendant Park * is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the market price of the instant building at the time of removal (only on the ground that the building was recorded in the record, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant building was a building without title to oppose the landowner, and there is no assertion or proof as to this point, and thus, the exchange price of the instant building is deemed as the amount of damages caused by illegal removal). Since the amount was 40,00,000, the above Defendant Park Ha did not clearly dispute the above Defendant.* The Plaintiff is liable to pay damages for delay calculated from September 12, 2005, which is the date of tort (date of removal).

Thus, as the plaintiff seeks from September 12, 2005 to the plaintiff 40,000,000 won, the plaintiff is obligated to pay 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until June 27, 2007, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment. Thus, the plaintiff's preliminary claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of the preliminary claim and the main claim against the defendant Park ** et al. are dismissed as it is without merit.