beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part as to the matters asserted by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The plaintiff argues that the sale price of the forest of this case is divided into two parts, but the plaintiff is paid only 10 million won among them, and that the remainder that the defendant agreed to change to the main period constitutes "an expression of intention, not an actual one," and thus null and void.
In the expression of intention that is not true, the expression of intention refers to the idea of the person who intends to express a specific content, and it does not mean that the person who expresses his/her intent is true, so even though the person does not bring his/her expression of intention in a true mind, it cannot be said that the expression of intention, not a true intention, is judged to be the best in the current situation, and thus, if the person expresses his/her intention, it cannot be said that the person expresses his/her intention,
(1) The plaintiff and the defendant asserted that the forest of this case is the defendant's own name during the cover of 99Da3475 delivered on April 25, 2000, 200Da51919, 51926 delivered on January 19, 2001, and 2002Da11458 delivered on April 25, 2003, etc.). The plaintiff asserted that the forest of this case was the defendant's own name while the plaintiff and the defendant raise their words, and that the plaintiff is merely the defendant's land. The plaintiff did not purchase and sell this case's land, and that "10 million won is delivered to the plaintiff and the remainder is brought to the defendant." Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff did not speak in the above manner, as seen above, is judged to have been correct at the time of the plaintiff's appeal.