1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Facts of recognition

On September 6, 2008, the Plaintiff purchased the land of Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun C (hereinafter “instant land”) in KRW 500 million, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 1, 2008 after paying the purchase price to B.

At the time when the Plaintiff and B entered into a sales contract for the said land, the registration book of the instant land was entered into with the area of 248 square meters.

However, after the plaintiff purchased the above land, the area of the above land was confirmed to be 230 square meters.

(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

Plaintiff’s assertion

Due to the negligence of the defendant who manages the area of the registry on the instant land, the area of the said land was mistakenly registered.

The Plaintiff and B determined the purchase price based on the area at the time of the sale of the instant land. As such, the Plaintiff’s negligence and the Plaintiff’s damages incurred to the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s negligence shall be deemed to be KRW 59,598,730,000, multiplied by the market price of the instant land by 3,327,485 won

Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the damages of 60 million won which are close to the above damages.

Judgment

It is difficult to readily conclude that there is negligence on the part of the Defendant, the manager, solely on the ground that the area of the land in this case is more than the actual owner, and there is no evidence to prove that there

In addition, the part of the land in excess of the above mentioned above exists only on the public register and could not be subject to sale from the beginning. If the purchase price was calculated based on the size of the land, the Plaintiff can exercise the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment against B on the part corresponding to the size of the excessively stated land. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff suffered losses due to excessive entry of the land area.

Therefore, we cannot accept the plaintiff's claim.

The conclusion is.