beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On October 7, 2014, the Plaintiff is the land for livelihood countermeasures within the E district located in Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant land for livelihood countermeasures”).
(1) or the right to purchase them (hereinafter referred to as the “right to purchase them in this case”)
(2) Upon purchasing KRW 30 million, the Defendant: (a) purchased each transfer note prepared by the Defendant from C; (b) each purchaser’s each transfer note; (c) the sale note and the waiver note of the right; and (d) the joint and several sureties prepared by the Defendant and F, and promissory notes jointly issued by the Defendant and F with the Defendant, each of which was issued at a face value of KRW 30 million; (b) the Defendant sold the instant living countermeasure note or the instant sales slip to G for the purpose of transfer before transfer without specifying the purchaser; (c) H, and H, to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff, without specifying the purchaser; and (e) the Plaintiff expressed its intent to sell the instant living countermeasure note or the instant sales slip; and (e) the Plaintiff expressed its intention to consent, a sales contract was concluded so long as the Plaintiff had expressed its intention to sell the instant living countermeasure note to a third party; and therefore, (e) the Defendant had a duty to pay KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff, as stated in the sales slip.
3. Even if the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the instant land for livelihood countermeasures or the instant water purchase right is null and void, the Defendant, without specifying the purchaser, prepared and delivered a letter of transfer, a letter of waiver of right, a joint and several surety, and a promissory note, respectively. In the preliminary case, the Defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment in the amount of KRW 30 million paid to the Plaintiff as the purchase price.
B. We examine the judgment on the primary claim, Gap's 2-2.