beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Facts of recognition
The Plaintiff is the owner of a forest land of 660 square meters and a forest of 330 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s land”) in Gyeonggi-gu Dri (hereinafter referred to as “Dri”) in Gyeonggi-do.
C around August 2014, G opened a road of H road of 484 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) through G around G around the boundary between the said road and the Plaintiff’s land.
On November 24, 2016, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on November 21, 2016, with respect to the instant real estate owned by C.
(Reasons for recognition) Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 2-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.
The Plaintiff C’s assertion that the instant road was built, thereby damaging the Plaintiff’s land without permission, thereby incorporating it into the said road. Accordingly, the slope of the Plaintiff’s land was collapsed, and the restoration to its original state is required in KRW 71,409,413.
C As such, the instant real estate was sold to the Defendant under the condition that the Plaintiff is liable for damages. At the time, C had no particular property other than the said real estate and had been in excess of its obligation. Therefore, C and the Defendant’s sales contract is a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the above sales contract should be revoked, and the defendant should cancel the registration of transfer of ownership of the real estate of this case due to restitution.
Since Defendant C did not damage the Plaintiff’s land without permission or incorporate it into the instant road, there is no damage claim against the Plaintiff, which is the preserved right to exercise the obligee’s right of revocation.
In addition, the instant real estate was purchased in the name of C for the joint operation of the instant real estate complex development project by C, I, and G. Since G completed the registration of transfer of the instant real estate in the name of the defendant as a result of the cancellation of a joint agreement after the said agreement, there is no sales contract between C and the
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.
. Determination.