청구이의
1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).
The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part to be dismissed or added is as follows: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 12134, May 1, 2001>
On August 16, 2016, after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, on August 16, 2016, the head of the kindergarten from the Busan Metropolitan Government Office of Education Support to “Defendant” to “Plaintiff and Selected C”, and on the end of the judgment of the first instance, the following details are added to the end of the fifth fifth 17th century.
The evidence Nos. 19 through 21 submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial (including the number of pages) is insufficient to deem that the Plaintiff and the Appointor B knew that the title trust agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In particular, it is insufficient to recognize that at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the Appointor B knew that the title trust agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff was known. The following is added as follows, which is the 11th day following the first judgment of the first instance.
C. The instant sales contract was rescinded as the Plaintiff’s exercise of statutory right to rescind.
The Plaintiff, as to the assertion that the agreement was either terminated or terminated, notified that “(i) B would cancel the instant sales contract according to the Defendant’s failure to lend KRW 500 million to the Appointed B according to the agreement, and the Plaintiff, in the preparatory document dated October 16, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the copy of the instant complaint was served on the Defendant, was lawfully rescinded the instant sales contract according to the Defendant’s refusal of performance.
The claim for cancellation in accordance with the statutory grounds for cancellation is asserted only in the above preparatory documents, so the above "duplicate of the complaint" appears to be a clerical error in the above quasi-written statement.
through. ...