손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 972 square meters in Seowon-gu, Yangwon-gun D (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”), and the Defendant is the owner of E forest land attached to the Plaintiff’s land, 50,318 square meters in size (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).
B. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant with the Chuncheon District Public Prosecutor’s Office by interfering with passage and unlawful ex officio exercise, etc.
C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a written agreement on September 25, 2015 in the course of the process of the instant accusation case, and the written agreement states as follows: “The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land owned by the Defendant are divided into two parts, such as the right-side forest, and the possession of a mutual dispute is completed (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to take procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land owned by the Defendant pursuant to the instant agreement clause, and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3.5 million, which is the damage incurred by the Plaintiff, to the wind that refuses to implement the instant agreement clause.
(b) Relevant statutes: To be listed in attached Form;
C. (1) If a sales contract was concluded by specifying a part of a parcel of land, but the area of such part constitutes a case where division is limited pursuant to the aforementioned relevant laws and regulations, a seller is unable to perform the procedure for registration of ownership transfer by dividing the said part of land. Therefore, the seller’s obligation to perform the procedure for registration of ownership transfer to a buyer according to the said sales contract ought to be deemed impossible. This also applies to an exchange contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da212524, Aug. 29, 2017). According to the overall purport of both the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 3 and 10 of Article 3, the Plaintiff-owned land and the Defendant.