Settlement Contract and Mistake

In the event that a compromise contract is concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, if the Nonparty purchased part of the instant real estate and sold it again to the Defendants, and thus, whether or not the reputation of the land actually owned by the Defendants is a dispute, and the settlement contract was concluded based on the number of plane registration in the method of resolving the dispute, it shall not be contested against the intent of the new dispute.

Article 733 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan District Court (78Gahap2042)

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,528,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from the day from the day when the service was made soar to the full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the overall purport of Gap's testimony and parties' arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 2-1 through 8, and Gap's statement No. 1 presumed to have been established (the above horizontal lot number No. 2) and Eul's total number No. 2-5 (the above horizontal lot number No. 2-1) and the total number No. 2-5 (the above horizontal lot number No. 3-2-6-2-3-2-6-2-3-24-24-24-24-27-27-27-27-27-27-27-27-27-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-4-2-3-3-4-27-2-3-3-4-27-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-2-3-3-3-3-4-3-4-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-4-2-3-

However, during 163 days prior to the registration of Defendant 1 in the name of Nonparty 1 (number 2 omitted), the Defendants purchased 103 square meters from Nonparty 2, and sold 23 square meters out of them to Defendant 1, and registered 80 square meters in trust, and thereafter, Nonparty 3 sold 79 square meters to Nonparty 6 and immediately sold it to Nonparty 6 in his name. Thus, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendants asserted that it is difficult for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff’s request as long as the facts are not exceeded 79 square meters, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ testimony at the trial consistent with the Defendants’ assertion that it is difficult for Nonparty 4, 5, and 6 to use the above 163 square meters in the name of Nonparty 2 to purchase the above land, and that it is difficult for the Defendants to use the above 163 square meters in the name of Nonparty 1 to purchase the above 163 square meters in the name of Nonparty 1, 196.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 2,528,00,000 and damages for delay from the day following the delivery day of this case that the plaintiff sought. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for payment of the plaintiff's claim for objection is justified with this purport, and the original judgment is just in its purport, and all appeals filed by the defendants are dismissed because all appeals filed by the defendants are unfair. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)