2016Na2007324 Nullification of the MOU

A Incorporated Foundation A

A Incorporated Foundation B

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Gahap2351 Decided January 7, 2016

July 8, 2016

November 18, 2016

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff and the defendant confirm that there is no relationship of rights and obligations based on the memorandum of Understanding concluded on October 26, 2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant (the plaintiff is confirmed to be null and void in the understanding that the plaintiff entered into with the plaintiff and the defendant on October 26, 2007 about the promotion of the project, such as the establishment and operation of a charnel house and the use of access roads related to the project for the establishment of a charnel house, with respect to 3,431m of the first place and 2 parcels,

Preliminaryly, the plaintiff and the defendant confirmed that there is no contractual obligation under the plaintiff's contract based on the memorandum of Understanding drawn up on October 26, 2007 between the plaintiff and the defendant." The plaintiff filed the claim of this case in the purport of the claim, and the court integrated the above purport of the claim and corrected the purport of the claim.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the matters claimed by the plaintiff in the trial, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the party to the instant memorandum of Understanding was F and F was the representative of the defendant, and that since F was the representative of the defendant other than F, the defendant cannot become a party to the instant memorandum of Understanding.

The plaintiff's assertion of this case is naturally based on the premise that the defendant will establish and operate a charnel, and the foundation is the subject of rights separate from F, and only F should be the representative of the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff asserts that the statement of understanding of this case is a conditional statement of opinion on the premise that "the establishment of a charnel house within the limit of 4,968m of total floor space within the limit of 3,431m, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and 2 lots of land," and that as long as the execution plan is authorized within the limit of 8,097m, and 7,660m of total floor space, the agreement of the statement of understanding of this case has expired due to the non-performance of conditions.

Since the establishment and operation of charnel houses and charnel houses cannot be deemed to have been finalized at the time of the preparation of the instant MOU due to the reason that the establishment and operation of charnel houses must obtain authorization from the competent authorities, it cannot be deemed that the agreement on the instant MOU was a conditional declaration of intent premised on the above contents, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance court is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

The presiding judge and the senior judge;

Judge Cho Jae-soo

Judges Choi Jong-hee