beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.
2.Pursuant to the counterclaim brought at the trial.
Reasons
1. Determination on the main claim
A. The reason why the court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is that “101,7730 square meters” is changed to “101.7730 square meters” in the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the following is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following determination as to the new argument of the plaintiffs at the court of first instance under the 6th 10th part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
B. The Plaintiffs asserted to the effect that the Defendants would not exercise opposing power against the national bank when concluding the instant lease agreement with H, the owner of the instant land, as they argued to the effect that: (a) the terms of the said agreement are stipulated in the lease agreement to the effect that the Defendants would not exercise opposing power against the national bank; (b) and (c) the exercise of opposing power against the said agreement would be contrary to the doctrine of prohibition; and (d) thus, (e) the instant agreement is concluded, and (e) the doctrine of prohibition and prohibition is prohibited in cases where the act of subsequent acts contradictory to one’s prior acts is prohibited, and (e) the said agreement is derived from the principle of good faith, and (e) the said agreement was granted to the other party to deny the exercise of opposing power on the ground that it violates the principle of good faith
In light of the concept of justice, it should be objectively deemed that the other party’s belief was justifiable, and the exercise of rights against the other party’s trust should have reached an irrecoverable level in light of the concept of justice. As such, solely on the above circumstances asserted by the Plaintiffs, the Defendants offered trust to the Plaintiff, who purchased the instant apartment in the procedure of voluntary auction based on the bank or the right to collateral security.
It is recognized that he/she has objectively reached a legitimate state.