1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

On December 7, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the land of Jeju City C, D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “instant land”) at KRW 960,00,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract.” The said contract contains the following: (a) the content of the instant special agreement: (b) “concept all the features of the earth and the perusal of the register, etc.; and (c) the seller is responsible for the inspection.”

The Plaintiff paid the purchase price under the above sales contract to the Defendant, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 24, 2016 with respect to each of the above lands.

The plaintiff allowed the defendant to cultivate the above land free of charge without setting a specific deadline.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the plaintiff's assertion purport of the whole arguments is based on the plaintiff's land of this case, which has an unauthorized building's board warehouse and a prefabricated-type house, and the above stable and the house are partly invaded on another's land.

Around November 6, 2016, the time when the Plaintiff completed the procedure for ownership transfer registration under the instant contract, the Defendant promised to train the said stable and the housing.

However, the defendant did not observe the above promise, and the plaintiff inevitably removed the said stable and the prefabricated-type housing.

The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the expenses incurred in restoring the housing and warehouse to the original state due to the warranty against defects or non-performance of training commitments.

Judgment

First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant promised to train the warehouse and house on the ground of the instant land (it is unclear the legal meaning of fostering, but it is understood that each of the above buildings infringes on another’s land boundary and resolving without permission) to the Plaintiff.

Furthermore, the existence of the above warehouse and the house is “special defect” included in the seller’s warranty liability or the instant special agreement.