beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At around August 197, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a construction permit to build accommodation facilities (tourist hotel) on the ground of 101-3, 102-5, and 1103 lots of land at the time of Spool-si, 197.
B. In addition, when applying for the above building permit, the Plaintiff filed an application for an urban planning project with the purport to establish an urban planning road (small 3-66 line) with a size of 6.0m and 24.5m in length (26.5m in Ghana).
C. The Defendant permitted the Plaintiff’s above building permit application.
Attached Form
Each real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as the “each real estate of this case”) was owned by the Plaintiff with land divided in the above 102-5 and 110, the building site of this case.
However, according to the above urban planning project, the defendant was donated to the defendant on July 30, 199 and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on the ground of donation No. 21469, July 29, 199.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. As to the Plaintiff’s application for permission to construct a hotel, the Defendant attached an additional note of donation of each of the instant real estate to the Defendant as to the Plaintiff’s application for permission to construct a hotel.
Although the Defendant’s building permit against the Plaintiff is a binding act or a binding discretionary act, the Defendant attached additional clauses such as donation, and thus, the above additional clauses are null and void. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant for each real estate of this case is also null and void.
Therefore, the defendant should cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in his name.
Even if the father of the donation acceptance is not void as a matter of course, the defendant's donation acceptance can be revoked by mistake, and the plaintiff revoked the donation acceptance (donation) of each real estate of this case through the complaint of this case.