불법행위에 따른 손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following judgments as to the matters alleged in the court of first instance, thereby citing this case’s assertion in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. Additional determination of 2.
A. The plaintiff's assertion constitutes the legitimate successor of the sales contract of this case, and even if the sales contract of this case remains in existence, since the defendants sold this case to another person and completed the registration of ownership transfer, defendant 1 is liable for default or tort, and defendant 2 is involved in the defendant 1's tort by forming appearance such as the cancellation of the sales contract of this case. Thus, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the down payment amount of KRW 54,746,00,000, the solatium amount of KRW 76,746,000,000, and damages for delay.
Judgment
1) Although the Plaintiff asserted that he succeeded to the status of the seller in this case from E, it is recognized that E succeeded to the sales contract in this case from D on April 25, 2007, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the sales contract in this case from E on July 17, 2010, and that E again succeeded to the sales contract in this case from E on April 7, 2010, while E prepared a written confirmation to waive all status as a contractor due to the failure to pay the balance, etc. on April 7, 2010. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that E was the state of waiver of rights at the time of the sales contract in this case. Accordingly, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff ordinarily succeeded to the status of the seller in this case. Ultimately, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff ordinarily succeeded to the status of the seller in this case. There is no reason to see all arguments based on the premise that the Plaintiff was a legitimate seller in the position of the seller in the sales contract in this case.