소유권이전등기
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The Defendants jointly share KRW 60,000,000 with respect thereto to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on November 28, 2017.
1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is that the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. Determination
A. In a case where the judgment of the court of first instance accepted one of several claims selected by the judgment of the court of first instance as to the cause of a claim and did not determine the remaining claims, and only the defendant appealed against it, the court of first instance may determine at will a claim which was not determined by the judgment of the court of first instance among several claims selected by the judgment of the court of first instance without a need to first examine and decide the claim cited by the judgment of the court of first instance (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7023, Sept. 14, 192). Thus, the court of first instance shall determine the claim for damages based on nonperformance, not the
1) The Plaintiff asserts that, although the Defendants were obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest of this case to the Plaintiff, they were unable to perform their obligations by selling the forest of this case to the non-party company, the Defendants are obligated to pay the purchase price and the compensation for delay that they received from the non-party company to the Plaintiff who exercises the right to claim (the Plaintiff, from May 27, 2020 in the preparatory document dated May 27, 2020, clearly stated that the Plaintiff claimed the right to claim for compensation for damages arising from the impossibility of performance along with the right to claim for damages arising from the tort from the first instance trial,
2) Although our Civil Act does not separately stipulate the subject claim in addition to the obligee’s right to compensatory damages and the right to cancel the contract as an effect of nonperformance, there is no reason to deny the subject claim in interpretation.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da71431 Decided June 28, 2012). The subject claim causes impossibility of performance.