Sungnam-si Seoul Metropolitan City 21?

Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu 1210 Gwangju District Headquarters

Representatives of Representatives of Representatives of Representatives

Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Jeon Nam-nam Bosung Group

OO

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for defendant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. On July 14, 1998, the Korea Land Corporation (the Korea Land and Housing Corporation established pursuant to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act on January 1, 2009 and comprehensively succeeded to the property, bonds, debts, and other rights and obligations of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation; hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Plaintiff") purchases from the Defendant 2,148 meters of the land for rural-dong factory in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter referred to as "Seoul Land") and completes the registration of ownership transfer on August 21, 1998, as part of the business of acquiring and disposing of real estate owned by the company in order to support the repayment of loans to financial institutions of the company.

B. On November 10, 199, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on September 21, 1999, in the future, a limited liability company of 000 regarding the instant land. On March 29, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on March 25, 2005.

C. On May 4, 2007, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to Nonparty 00, Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

D. After finding out that concrete structures, steel bars, waste oil, etc. are buried on the instant land, the non-party company notified the Plaintiff of the discovery of wastes on or around February 11, 2008. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to dispose of wastes on or around February 25, 2008. The Defendant performed waste treatment work from March 9, 2008 to March 15, 2008.

E. The non-party company carried out the construction of underground base destruction on the instant land, and additionally performed waste disposal work from June 25, 2008 to August 11, 2008.

F. The non-party company filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as the Gwangju District Court 2008da78335 on the ground that the above waste treatment work requires 85,019,000 won, and on June 18, 2009, the above court sentenced the non-party company to pay the non-party company 68,015,200 won and damages for delay. The plaintiff appealed against this judgment at the Gwangju High Court 20094045. The plaintiff filed an appeal against this judgment. Around August 2009, at the above appellate court, the notice was given to the defendant upon the plaintiff's request, and on October 20, 2009, the plaintiff ordered the non-party company to pay 35 million won to the non-party company until November 7, 2009, and the above decision became final and conclusive on November 7, 2009, and the plaintiff paid the above amount to the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry and video of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole theory

2. The parties' assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the defendant sold the land of this case to the plaintiff in a filled-in state, the warranty liability exists, and the plaintiff exercised his right on February 11, 2008, within 6-month exclusion period, which is the time of discovery of such defects, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages of 35 million won in accordance with the above settlement recommendation decision. The defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to compensate for the above money as tort since he sold the land of this case to the plaintiff after demolishing the building and temporary buildings, etc. owned by the defendant, which were owned by the defendant of this case, buried the land of this case, sold the land of this case to the plaintiff with the concealment of the

In regard to this, the defendant agreed that the plaintiff would not be liable for the warranty on waste, etc. while concluding a sales contract on the land of this case with the non-party company, so it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to pay damages to the non-party company at will without any liability for damages to the non-party company, and to claim again damages to the defendant. The seller's warranty liability on the land of this case as the seller has become extinct after the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act, and the defendant is not liable for tort unless he buried the land of this case.

3. Determination

A. Concerning warranty liability

(1) Establishment of warranty liability

The defendant sold the land of this case to the plaintiff as a normal land without any waste, and it is clear that the use value or exchange value of the land of this case has been reduced due to the existence of waste. Thus, such defect constitutes "defect of the subject matter of sale under Article 580 of the Civil Act". Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages suffered by the plaintiff by reducing the defect of the land of this case to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances (in this case, the establishment of the liability to compensate the plaintiff to the non-party company does not affect the establishment of the defendant's liability to the plaintiff, and therefore, the defendant's assertion regarding the exemption special agreement between the plaintiff and the non

(2) The completion of the statute of limitations

The Civil Act only provides for six-month exclusion period (Article 582) for the seller's warranty liability period (Article 582), but does not provide for the statute of limitations for the seller's warranty liability period. Nevertheless, it appears that the Civil Act requires the buyer to exercise his/her right within a short period of time. The purport of the Civil Act is to resolve the uncertainty of legal relations and to ensure stability in transactions by promptly settling disputes over the defect in the object of sale and purchase as a result of the buyer's warranty. The mere fact that the buyer does not know of the defect in the object of sale (in particular, even if there is hidden defect not known of the defect in the object of the seller's warranty), it goes against the legislative intent of setting a short-term exclusion period in order to promptly determine the legal relationship. Even in cases where the buyer is liable for the defect due to any cause attributable to him/her, the buyer's claim for damages becomes extinct after the expiration of the statute of limitations period, and it is reasonable to view that the buyer's warranty liability continues to exist until the expiration of the warranty liability until the expiration date.

In addition, the five-year commercial statute of limitations shall apply in cases where the sales contract was conducted as a commercial activity. Thus, the defendant's conclusion of the sales contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on the land of this case constitutes a basic commercial activity. Thus, the plaintiff's right to appeal to the defendant against the defendant is five-year statute of limitations from the time when the plaintiff was delivered the land of this case.

Although there is no clear material as to the delivery date of the land of this case, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff received the land of this case from the defendant around August 21, 1998 at the time when the plaintiff delayed the registration of the transfer of ownership with respect to the land of this case on August 21, 1998. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant as to the defect of this case's land of this case as to August 2003 which passed five years thereafter has expired. Thus, the defendant's claim for the warranty against defects is without merit.

B. Whether tort liability is established

In light of the respective statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a lot number No. 1) as to whether the Defendant removed a building and temporary building, etc. owned by the Defendant, which was owned by the Defendant, and then buried wastes after reclaiming them, and sold the instant land to the Plaintiff with hiding the facts, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the same, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Defendant’s tort liability is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.