beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added the judgment of the court of first instance as to the matters alleged in the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional judgment;
A. The Defendant asserts that, since each of the instant lands was provided as joint collateral with other lands owned by the Defendant, the Defendant suspended the payment of the remainder of KRW 34,00,000 until the Defendant terminated the creation of a right to collateral security on each of the instant lands, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the Plaintiff pays the remainder.
However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of KRW 34,00,000 among the collateral security obligations of each of the instant lands constitutes a performance acquisition, and thus, the Plaintiff fulfilled its obligation to pay the instant purchase price. On the contrary, there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiff was merely a delay of the payment of KRW 34,00,000 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that differs from the premise is without merit.
B. At the time of specifying the instant housing site and road site around January 2012, the Defendant: (a) agreed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Defendant, and the third parties, who purchased one-third shares of each of the instant land, to divide the remaining land by the method determined by the Defendant and F’s share of the land in advance with respect to the Plaintiff; (b) as the instant road site is not required to construct a road on its location and only the Defendant and the Plaintiff share the instant road site, F incurred damages with a reduced amount of 154 square meters in its own land; and (c) as the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to its market value, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until compensating the Plaintiff for damages.
Defendant . The testimony of the witness G of the trial room and the trial room is alone.