beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 73,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 2, 2016 to October 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant was leased from the Nutrition Group C and D forest land (hereinafter “instant forest”) during the period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015.
B. On March 19, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a transfer contract with the following content:
(hereinafter “this case’s transfer contract”). The Defendant transferred the right to KRW 5,00 (5,00,000) to the Plaintiff, which is adjacent to the Gyeongchip Group C and D of the Gyeongchip in the military forest.
Principal: 83 million won is added: A certificate of 1 (a contract) of military forest Gap is written as a "State forest," but the defendant also argued that he/she entered into an agreement to modify the farmland ledger.
Part is responsible for being registered in the farmland ledger.
C. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 83 million to the Defendant for the payment under the instant transfer contract.
Since then, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 10,000 as the rent by holding office for the instant forest land to E. D.
Meanwhile, the Nutrition Group concluded a loan agreement with E as to the instant forest during the period from July 2015 to October 20, 2015, and subsequently concluded a loan agreement with the Nutrition Co., Ltd. from November 19, 2015 to December 31, 2018.
E. The dietitian notified the termination of the loan agreement on December 29, 2015 on the ground that the Defendant sub-leases the instant forest, and notified the termination of the loan agreement on January 14, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the fact-finding reply to the nutrition head of this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the transfer of the right to the forest of this case, which was leased, is impossible, and that the transfer contract of this case is null and void as an original impossible juristic act.
However, according to the loan contract with the dietitian and the defendant, the forest of this case is in question.