손해배상(기)
1. The Defendant’s KRW 105,408,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from February 26, 2010 to January 7, 2014.
1. In full view of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact that the defendant entered into a gift contract with the plaintiff on Oct. 29, 2002, stating that on Oct. 29, 2002, the defendant would donate the land of this case to the plaintiff 420 square meters and D previous 873 square meters (hereinafter "each land of this case"), which is owned by the defendant (hereinafter "the gift contract of this case"), and thereafter, on Feb. 26, 2010, the defendant sold each land of this case at the time of Chungcheong and received KRW 105,408,000 as the selling price.
According to the above facts, since the defendant sold each of the lands of this case at the time of loyalty and thereby the defendant's obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff was in an impossible condition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for losses incurred therefrom, and the compensation amount is equivalent to the above purchase price as the market price of each of the lands of this case at the time of impossibility of performance. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from February 26, 2010 to January 7, 2014, the delivery date of the copy of the application for the payment order of this case, from February 26, 2010 to January 7, 2014, the delivery date of the copy of the application for the payment order of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning
2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant revoked the gift intention on the ground that the Plaintiff was acting as a paroon to the Defendant.
The plaintiff alleged that he lent 262,00,000 won to the plaintiff who disposed of the house located in Gwangju City, Gwangju City around August 2002, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above assertion only with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.